All over the internet
The monkeys chase the weasel
And wax poetic
Scribbled on his easel
All over the internet
The monkeys chase the weasel
And wax poetic
Scribbled on his easel
OK, I get your meaning.
If the Lugano device was changed from 3 phase to single phase, then that omission would be grievous.
As it is, I suspect the wiring was changed from a wye to a delta, from dummy to active, which fits the math perfectly. The resistances remain constant that way, and input power remains as reported.
I don't see how the amperage required to obtain ~ 900 W with the low resistance coil(s) used in Lugano could be achieved. Neither the Compact Fusion controller nor the amp clamps used for the PCE could handle it.
In the Levi report you refer to, you can see from figure 3 in the Appendix, that the ECAT-HT was operated in two phase mode.
My hypothesis is that at the Lugano test the ECAT during the dummy run was operated in three phase mode, while at the actual runs it was operated in two phase mode.
That also explains that Rossi was right about the divisions of the currents (If he was referring to the actual runs). It also explains why people , assuming three phase operation at the actual run, but with real operation in two phase mode calculated the large negative resistance drop of the heater wires.
And yes, the professors where confused about this too seeing some of the assumptions they made in the report.
I was referring to the Lugano report, but it appears that you are discussing the "Indication of ..." paper.
There do seem to be both single phase and three phase mentioned. I was looking at the electrical information supplied for that report recently, to see if Power Factor problems creep in, but it seems that they used kWh, which should be fine. I did some recent tests with an unarmed hot tube and was surprised at the very low power factor at low voltages using an SSVR, considering that the load is purely resistive. (Ie: 1000 W coil at full AC cycle PF = 1, but PF of 0.5 at 300W true W, while VA showed ~600 W). [the Lugano device was almost certainly operated at <1 PF for the entire experiment]
Anyways... Andrea S did an analysis of the PCE waveforms in the appendix, and made a spreadsheet for testing the electrical input which is quite handy. It should be easily Googled, and is posted on this site several times.
(The Bianchini report should be read in conjunction with Indication of to get a better handle on construction details)
The point is: they didn't address them because they fully know what this is all about: pathoskepticism. It's not worth an answer. However, it's worth social engineering contracts, because LENR are real and very disturbing for some industrial and financial interests who really wish their implementation into public tech goes very, very slowly... skeptopathy is a very useful tool.
Hence the thousands of posts bashing Rossi and endlessly quibbling about points easy to quibble about.
Unfortunately, the problems I listed are almost all demonstrably wrong, not pathosceptic quibbles.
Rossi nearly blew a gasket over the lack of using the proper delta configuration math, posting a JoNP diatribe on how much idiots we were for pointing that out, and how correct the formula in the report was. But he is still wrong. (The overall impact is relatively insignificant in the report, but using the wrong formula in the report helps obfuscate the math for figuring what was going on electrically). He did not understand that current flows through the C2 cables from other phases even if it does not "enter" or "exit" the respective connected C1 cable, which means the current from the C1 cable cannot be simply divided in two for the attached C1 cable to get a correct answer for the current in the connected C2 cables.
Arxiv rejected the Lugano paper because it was riddled with problems, not because the PTB, MIB, or The Man are blocking progress to save the oil/electric companies (or whatever).
Social engineering, and various conspiracy-like theories are irrelevant to the list I posted: These issues can be tested. Just like Rossi's magic Gamma 0232 metering pumps that pump (for him) far more than they can pump for anyone else (not to mention defeating the purpose of using a metering pump in the first place, if he could get the pumps pumping at twice their specification).
I did not bother with the ash-fuel part of the report in my list since issues there were in part addressed by Mr. Hoistad, and theories there rely on conjecture more than demonstrable facts.
The time is nearly ripe for a COPolympics.
Categories for best real, fake, both positive and negative COPs are my suggestion.
The level of effort put in this collective pseudo-debunk tells volumes about the reality of Rossi's invention, and how much of a game changer LENR are gonna be
"(Snip endless quibbles which have been addressed hundreds of times)"
NOT addressed by the authors of the report, which is the point.
Wow. I would appreciate a replication, but I don't think it is worth doing. There are too many unknowns such as what was in the powder.
If you do this, you need to consult with the authors of the paper.
The next two tests after this were disasters, so I no longer believe these results are credible. I am judging by the people, not by the technical merit of the paper. In other words, I am doing the same thing Mary Yugo does in this instance. The difference is, I know I am doing this, and I say I am, whereas she does not understand the difference between a technical reason to doubt a paper versus an evaluation of the author's credibility.
I won't install any powders. I just want to see how hot it gets without any special reaction.
When this paper was published, I think it was reasonable to conclude there might be something to the claims:
I have repeatedly asked whether you found any technical errors in this paper. You keep saying you don't believe it because you don't trust the authors. That is a reasonable reason to reject the paper, but it is not a technical reason. I conclude you do not know of a technical reason. Neither do I. So, a person who does trust the authors (or did trust them when this was published) would have a legitimate reason to think there was something to replicate.
I will replicate this device next. The majority of it is off the shelf components.
I wonder what the temperature setting is on the PIDs shown in Snap 25 (above).
against what / whom?
1) Not using the correct 3 phase equation for a delta configuration.
2) Not dividing the rod power by 2/3 for the Active Run, as they did with dummy.
3) Not noting that the reactor was painted with high temperature paint.
4) Conflating total emissivity with spectral emissivity for adjustments to the I R camera emissivity setting, so that the temperature was reported hundreds of degrees hotter than it was, resulting in reporting multiples of the actual radiant power output.
5) Using an iteration formula that obfuscates the emissivity setting used, and further distorts the incorrect use of total emissivity for the IR camera.
6) Not noting that Rossi and Fabiani monitored the experiment, while the Professors were absent for long periods of time (days).
7) Not using a thermocouple to compare the IR camera results, which would have indicated trouble with using total emissivity for the IR camera emissivity function.
8 ) Ignoring the Type K thermocouple controlling the reactor temperature, and the fact that this thermocouple was almost certainly hotter than the melting point of the thermocouple if the (erroneous) IR camera temperature was correct (and yet the thermocouple did not melt).
9) Ignoring that the calibrated resistance wire that the heater coil was made from was almost certainly hotter than it's melting point if the IR camera temperature was correct (and yet the heater wire did not melt).
10) Used the Rods with special stickers to calibrate the IR camera emissivity (at least to around 350 C) but did not analyse the composition of the Rods. Finding that this result did not match the emissivity vs temperature plot for alumina (total) , they claim to have modified the alumina plot they used, but did not show this in the plot.
11) Analysed the composition of one of the reactor ridges, somehow getting 99% alumina for the composition, even though the reactor body is composed of Durapot 810, which is made from 75 to 85 % alumina. The paint over the Durapot may have been made of 99% alumina, but then that means they managed somehow to only extract paint and no actual ridge material from the ridge...
That's just off the top of my head.
The Professors should have been able to replicate the Conflated Total and Spectral Emissivity Psuedo-power Muliplier Effect with a flat slab of heated alumina by now.
Having achieved that, attempting a replication of the Pseudo-boiling, Pseudo Water Flow, Pseudo-power Multiplier Effect is only logical.
Shane - no confusion. Off-white paint. We have the brand and product number.
We also have the same batch of Durapot 810 and a leftover virgin reactor from that production run. Planet Rossi may hear more about that later.
No comment on Levi having the material sample tested and coming back with 99% alumina except....say no more say no more.
Can you disclose the paint brand and product number?
I might want to test it out.
Was it Pyro Paint 634 AL?
I can't vouch for the existence of the Antarctic, but the north pole area can be explored.
As for the scientists surprised at finding Styrofoam blocks floating in the far north arctic (in the news recently), clearly they are not familiar with the communities up there. No recycling facilities exist, and the wind blows and blows...
Haha, well said! I should add that the Oct 2011 test was with the 1MW plant, that only ran at half power (500 kw), and had a 500 kw generator plugged in and running the whole time.
Who knows, maybe he will use that same generator for the QX test.
Don't forget the October 2011 condenser "steam" leaving the blue container in twin pipes, going into the twin fan-cooled condensers, then exiting the condensers as water, and without steam pressure (steam at atmospheric pressure, maybe even causing a vacuum as it condenses) or pumps, flowing from the condensers for several meters and then up into the reservoir to a level almost as high as the top of the condensers, (supposedly) without ending up with the condensers full of water to the same level that the water enters the reservoir (against gravity to about a metre above ground level).
I predict that Rossi's plasma will have a Maxwellian distribution of temperature which includes electrons and all ions, and that the surface area of the plasma will be equivalent to the surface area of a solid of the same external dimensions as the plasma.
Whether or not these things can be demonstrated to be true.
I haven't tried that IR thermometer yet on anything hotter than my stovetop.
I haven't heated up anything for a while, but I'm going give it a go again soon.
I have a 4-channel TC recorder and probably 3 TCs still in good shape.
Just wound up a ~170 mm long, 6 mm diameter, 12 ohm Kanthal A1 heater coil, with a plan to uncoil one loop every ~39 mm, to make 4 parallel coils (wired still in series) into a roughly 5 cm square, 10 mm thick alumina block, once potted.
I agree about price btw, there is nothing close to it, took me a lot of searching to find this bargain. ,Many similar-looking low temperature ones but this is the only high temperature version I have found.
When you tested for the appropriate IR thermometer emissivity settings for alumina and for Durapot 810, what were your findings?
It is a pretty basic device, but the price point is great for the temperature range.
Importantly, it can calculate temperatures as high as 1600 C, which is handy for basic emissivity tests. I find that the software in most IR thermometers limits the upper temperatures reported to the maximum of their rating. (ie, the Optris software only calculates temperatures as high as 1507 C with the 1500 C camera option).
A device incapable of reporting as high as 1410 C of course will be of no use in testing (at least qualitatively) whether the correct emissivity user setting for a LWIR thermometer or camera when measuring a roughly 800 C alumina object is closer to, for example, 0.4 or to 0.95
Ah, ha. That's a technical error. * On p. 10 they calculated 1,609 W. You are saying it should be 1,505 W, a 6% error. That is significant, but I do not think it is close to negating their conclusion.
Have you found other technical errors?
* I mean, that is the kind of error I keep asking Mary Yugo and others to point to, rather than saying, for example, "this paper is wrong because I do not trust the author." A paper may be dubious or unbelievable because the author is untrustworthy, but that is not a technical error. It is a judgement call. It may be valid, but it ain't technical.
Other than questions regarding the electrical measurements, that's about it.
The COP goes back to 5.6 or so from around 5, (when adjusted as above and the related daughter calculations are all accounted for), when experiment 1 is re-calculated using the same emissivity as determined (properly) in experiment 2.
Levi et al "Indication of..."
Page 9, equation (3): T4 is calculated wrong; calculated thermal power reduces to 1505 W when corrected.
Heat transfer coefficient is a bit too high, due to coarse data in table used for selection of value.
In this case, this is the general formula for determining the apparent emissivity of an object as viewed through the discrete spectral sensitivity range of the IR camera microbolometer system.
How are those integrations you promised us over a year ago coming along?
Here is a good place to start:
Ele wrote: "
Oh ho the Genius come in ! Tell me guru how hot is your plate ?
Normal electric heaters go up to about 400 °C and in this (low) range of temperature the Lugano group successfully calibrated their instruments and found no artificial COP with the empty reactor.
They even measured the emissivity of the Alumina on the pipes remember ?
So I see that you are here to collect the applause of the professional anti Rossi team but I think that you have done wrong measurements !"
I need no applause. I ask for no thanks.
I have done many measurements, which gives the the experience to know when someone is bullshitting regarding that type of measurement.
I only ask that the perpetuation of the myth of the correct use of total emissivity for the IR camera specific emissivity user function during the Lugano "reactor" test (and in addition the stupid reiteration nonsense using the total emissivity plot) be buried once and for. This simply requires that more people test the system. I have made dozens of suggestions of how this can be done cheaply and easily, but complex replications are also fine. They will all show, within a small amount of error, that the use of total emissivity for alumina is completely wrong in regards to IR camera measurement using less than the total IR band for temperature measurement.
In my opinion, anyone clinging to the possibility that the use of total emissivity for anything that is not a true grey body or blackbody (which alumina and almost all similar materials are definitely not), has not actually tested the system, is intentionally obfuscating the truth, or worse.
The biggest impediment for most people is obtaining an IR temperature measurement device that can go at least as high as 1000 C. Some folks are scared of, or too inexperienced with electricity to do some tests. But many are capable. I call upon these skilled folks to do some tests, and add their voice to the coming, and indeed inevitable chorus of "bullshit" in regards to the Lugano Report.
I know that the Swedish scientists are fully capable of making a hot alumina tube, or square tile, and testing the emissivity with secondary temperature measurement to at least 1300 C. I triple dog dare them to do it.
Hello mr. Paradigmoia,
I'm just tracking how many disinformation you can spread out.
You have tested it ? Alone ? and using the same logic of this forum who was over viewing you ?
How have you verified that Alumina you used was pure ? Impure Alumina, like what is found in most alumina cements have a very different emissivity from the pure one.
Alumina cements have a very high emissivity while pure alumina does not go above 0.7 (0.64) in any case.
Remember, the Lugano group have measured the emissivity of the alumina pipes and found that this was perfectly compatible with the values found in tables.
You say you have heated up to glowing .......
How ? have you used Kanthal wires ? From where you were seeing the glowing ? pure Alumina becomes transparent at high temperature so the glowing should be from the wires if you have seen the glowing from your tube then this would suggest that yours was not pure alumina.
You say that you got a "COP around 3 to 4"
Which number please ? 3 or 4 ? and how you have used math ?
Remember that Energy is a very weak function of emissivity because emissivity appears in the conversion of bolometers signal (proportional to energy) to temperature and back to conversion from temperature to energy.
So what you refer is unrealistic and surely is due to a math error, for example the one from TC that was using two different emissivity factors one for the camera and one for the Stefan Boltzmann law.
You say that you have stick a thermoucople on the tube. How ?
Contact measure of temperature on Alumina is not trivial because Alumina is a thermal insulator and also normal thermocouples would not stand high temperature so you need quite a refined setup to do that not something that everyone can do.
You say that you adjusted the emissivity on your IR gun, this means that somehow you measured it and if you obtained a value higher then 0.7 then your material was not alumina. Note that at high emissivity the error done by TC is less important so you will ( oh what a miracle !) find a COP just near 1.
So mr Paradigmoia, for me (and also for any one with some laboratory experience) you are just mythomaniac who want to appears in the net as the hero that is the one and the only capable to make a measure. Not the Lugano team or prof. Parchkomov or any other equals you.
Nice try. I suggest everyone that can to test it. Don't take my word alone. But I have made many tests.
A pure alumina tile (easily purchased) placed on a hot plate is a fine test. Use the table from the Lugano report, reiterate away, and wonder why the tile is so much hotter than the hot plate by IR, when using the Lugano Total - Spectral Conflation Protocol...
Visible light transparency IS NOT equivalent to IR transparency. It only takes about 1.5 mm of alumina ceramic to be totally opaque to IR transmission, depending on pore size and grain size characteristics.
3 to 4 "COP" depends primarily on the temperature of the ceramic. The hotter, the higher the IR baloney "COP" will be.
Ele said: "
Regarding TC all of you repeat the story about the emissivity.... etc...... but that was only a fantasy and a false information diffused only by TC, and also the others critics in what you call his paper were ridiculous.
And BTW who was supervising TC ? You say that even an Angel could do errors why not TC ?
You seem to take his words like a dogma, or an absolute truth."
Well, I tested it. I once again suggest everyone test it.
TC was right within a very small margin of error.
Heat up an alumina tube to glowing, use the Lugano Protocol, and get a "COP" of around 3 to 4.
Then stick a thermocouple on the tube, correct the IR camera or even IR "gun" emissivity function to the appropriate value, which very near 0.95, and voila, the IR camera temperature plummets, matches the thermocouple, and a COP of 1.0 (or very close to that) is the result when the math is done.
Seriously, the replicator crowd should have made dozens of fake 3 to 4 COP devices using the Lugano Protocol and alumina tubes (even bathroom tiles) by now. No fuel needed! No special recipe, except the Lugano Protocol IR total and spectral emissivity conflation treatment.
The history of the mass of the electron is another good example. The early confirmations hang around Rutherford's, possibly due to the influence of his reputation, then slowly slink over to a new mean.
I might have enough time in a month or so to fiddle with sub-Critical Radius alumina coatings on Kanthal wires to see how high a Lugano-style IR "COP" can be made to go.