Shane D. ,

The dummy is messed up in Lugano too. Once that gets squared away, there is no basis, within uncertainties and real errors, to claim any COP other than what Nature normally provides.

Consider this little crumb: the camera (spectral in band) emissivity is being argued about endlessly, and yet who has tackled the question of the real Total emissivity from which the output power is finally calculated? No one. Why? Because even if we had perfect thermocouple corroborated IR camera temperatures, no one has any real basis to say what the Total emissivity of the device with ribs, uncertain coatings, uncertain roughness, etc., really is. Oh, sure we can grab a textbook value for that. That should be real close to an object we have ourselves only seen in a few photos (one of which could be the one that broke, not the actual working one.)

How much off does the Total emissivity have to be to eat up the 'excess' 7 to 20% ? Not much.

Higgins' report, as good as it is, has an error which moves his estimate closer to TC's when corrected.

The MFMP version does not deal with the thermal distribution very well, and crashes like a Jato-powered sedan into a cliff wall when dealing with the Dummy.

And TC's version can have that 0.07 (?) excess wiped out with the most minor adjustment to the total emissivity.

LDM's version is more complex, but still has ad-hoc parts put in, like total emissiviy, as is necessary, because acurate information simply does not exist.

All of these agree that COP 2+ did not likely happen. (Let alone COP > 1.3 even). The little bit that that might look like excess can be wiped away in a moment in the noise of the uncertainties. More certainty is not going to be forthcoming. Unless maybe IH leaks out their report on tests with the last Reactor.

LDM,

Although the error % seems large for the coolest end of the rods, the final W difference, in terms of the total power budget, should still be rather minor. I believe that I had a similar result when I did it, and it did seem to be rounding that made the difference.

The calculations for working out the Rod segment temperatures and Rod temperature gradient, and therefore power, during the active period is much more complex. There're is very little in the report to go on, since just the final total power is reported for each run.

You should be close enough, however, with your model that it should be possible to test if the 2/3 factor was in fact applied, or not, to the active period Rod power in the report, since a total 33% overestimate error should be obvious. (It is my opinion that the 2/3 adjustment was not made to the active period Rod power in the report, and therefore the Rod power reported is too high for all active runs. (Easily fixed, since they lump those results into two periods anyways, an indication of how concerned the Professors were about the Rods contribution)).

Don't forget the minor Joule heating in the rods added in the report from the cables, and consider carefully the contribution of the heater coil extensions entering the Rods for 4 to 5 cm, which affect calculations for both the temperature of the initial Rod segments (Cap end) and the power budget of the Main Tube since these wire extensions, six in all, reduce the amount of input Joule heat available to the Main Tube and Caps, possibly explaining a portion of the previously calculated excess (COP 1.2 or similar).

Once, here in the Forum, I calculated exactly the parameters of the twisted 15 ga Kanthal resistance wire for the three parallel coils, from which the 6 X 4 cm (estimated) could be subtracted so that the end lead power % of the entire heater windings could be correctly attributed. Off the top of my head, each of the 3 coils have about 1.5 m of wire, which is twisted to make a pre-coiled length of slightly less than half of that. Probably better for me to look it up again. I believe that the Caps and wire extensions combined contain about 30% of the total calibrated resistance heater wire, and therefore the wire extensions could net about 15% of the Total input power.

Could stable pseudo-slits be made by (a series of) calibrated interference of alternating high frequency magnetic fields?

(A magnetic field grate)

Perhaps this is a naive question, but could the slow electron size be estimated/extrapolated by double-slit experiments, changing the slit size, slit displacement, and electron speeds, and comparing the interference patterns? Probably this has been done?

Quote from can

Brian Ahern has always been one of the most vocal critics of Rossi since the Bologna demo. I think it's more likely that Celani's hearsay was inaccurate.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/s…10115NET-Rossi-Story1.pdf

Agreed. I can hardly imagine Ahern and Rossi in the same room together. Ahern would likely saved the peanut gallery a lot of time if he had ever to been able to examine a Rossi demo and look over the apparatus. I always thought that Rossi mentioning that Ahern's work had merit on JoNP (closet competitor, IIRC?) was intended to deflect or temper Aherns negative comments about Rossi (as well as endear Rossi a little bit to the old school CF crowd, while making Rossi look even more knowledgable) [slick move, but a little too slick. Self-aggrandizing flattery of others is a Rossi specialty]. Of course, Mr. Ahern does not seem to be the sort of person who would be cowed by flattery (or anything else) if he felt he had something to say.

Rossi, on the other hand, fastidiously avoids people who critically examine and question every aspect of his devices and protocols, and keeps that sort away from his demos and equipment, meaning that Ahern would almost certainly never be invited to look at anything of Rossi's. As a competitor, Ahern would be smart and experienced enough to recognize errors and knowledgeable enough to learn trade secrets [I am being generous here] if he had access to Rossi devices. Neither outcome would be acceptable to Rossi.

Quote from axil

When a photon is created out of the quantum vacuum fluctuation, it produces zero energy. To do that, the photon and the anti photon are created in a pair.

This is one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in quantum mechanics: that vacuum is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles.

The pair of photons must be opposites of each other. For a photon, this means that the pair must have one member as left handed and the other member of the pair as right handed. When these to waveforms are added together, their sum must result in zero energy.

Display More

Except virtual particles are not actually particles, and they are virtual.

The virtual photon and "antiphoton" are created by math. They do represent disturbances in the photon field, and might be directly linked to disturbances in other fields, caused by real particles, like for example real electrons described by the electron field. However a virtual photon is an abstraction, not an actual photon. The reason that the exact opposite virtual particle is "created" in a pair, is that describing the disturbance requires adding a term to an equation, and this cannot be done unilaterally, and the added term settles down to the normal background (typically zero) after the physical cause has moved along.

(Like a fish creating a tiny bulge in the water above it as it glides smoothly just below the surface, raising the bulge means lowering the normal water level by an equal amount in some fashion.)

The virtual particles belonging to a virtual particle-antiparticle pair do not annihilate each other when they come together. This is because they are made of math describing a distortion in a field, not coherent particles. (The field distortion itself is real). If they were real particle -antiparticle pairs, they probably would annihilate each other, releasing (potentially) useable energy.

Digging into the various Rossi depositions gives more details on the Pt story.

And the missing element is Su,

Quote from Ahlfors

Not sealed:

0207.44_Exhibit_44.pdf

Keep following that Pt story.

Right to the end.

Please don't leave out inconvenient parts along the way.

So, Bruce__H ,

What do you think? The condensers were likely 3/4 full of water?

Perhaps some other ideas would be interesting to pursue...

Was the condenser water even circulating? Are there enough images from the demo to show the reservoir either depleting or maintaining a level?

Perhaps the 1 mW Plant simply ran long enough to fill the condensers and outlet hoses before being shut down. Can 750 L of water be held in the condensers and hoses?

Since there were two pipes from the Plant, two condensers, and two sets of hoses to two reservoirs, perhaps it is even possible water went IN one hose connected to a reservoir, and out the other. I believe that the two reservoirs were joined so that water could transfer between them.

Quote from Ascoli65

@ Paradigmnoia,

Any relation with what I wrote above? If so, could you please be more specific?

My comment is obliquely related to yours, but in general I was lamely attempting to explain why Rossi may be more convincing than many other people with amazing claims of new energy. (Excluded are scientists reporting on results obtained in some systematic and/or well-characterized way)

Well, I will say that when reading the JoNP in chronological order, and classifying the details of the reactor, construction materials, the radiation notes, etc., Rossi's narrative has a fairly strong appearance of a sensible progression, moving from one prototype to the next. There are some backtracking parts, which could be explained by an incomplete and evolving understanding of the process that the devices use to make heat. The overarching story he told seemed to be realistic. Mistakes in the main narrative were (originally) few, and could be accepted and equivocated away.

It is only when specific details than can be compared to more concrete evidence, like photo evidence or specific measurement equipment or techniques, that the cracks in the story begin to widen and the suspension of disbelief is dissolved. Some people prefer not to examine the many specific details, and for many of these people the story then appears intact. Real, true stories are a little bit messy and inexact in some details. In this way Rossi's stories, warts and all, resemble true stories more than that of a simple conman, who prefers to leave no loose ends from which a common con might become unravelled.

The Forum button in the drop down menu lists about five recent subjects.

The Portal button lists about 10 recent subjects.

After that the search function needs to be used, which can be tricky since often the content wanders from the subject title.

Sterling's video:

Images here:

Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from Bruce__H

Do you have a link to the video?

Here's one. Sterling made a better one. I have some marked up stills in the forum somewhere. I'll see if I can dredge them up.

If the steam video isn't good enough, try to explain the steam to water path, once the 'steam', at atmospheric pressure, exits the blue container in the October 2011 Bologna videos. Note that at some point, the condensed water flows uphill in a large diameter hose, about 0.75 m, in order to refill the reservoir, without a pump (and therefore either at atmospheric pressure, or maybe even at a 'vacuum' due to condensation of steam). Note also the height of the condensers from which this 'steam' must condense to water, and compare to the elevation change of the water as it enters the reservoir. Approximately 750 L per hour of water or steam equivalent of that much water reportedly flows through the circuit.

Quote from stan

Well then he won't show anything substantial in the next years to come will he?

Correct.

Here is a nice gallery of natural diamonds (no endorsement Intended).

Note in particular specimen LZ10. (5th row down, Left side)

https://dunnedinventures.com/gallery/

Which is the most preferred tin foil hat design, the "pirate" or the "bowl cut" ("60s Beatles")?

Kullander: I think we have to consider the experimental facts and not indulge too much in speculation about what could happen in theory. We must be sure that they make measurements and observations as accurately as possible, and that the experiment is able to be repeated by independent researchers -- that's not possible in this case (the catalysts in the device are secret) -- but you have to rely on Rossi that he is true to what he conveys, and through discussions with him we may try to conclude how reliable the measurements are.

If this is true, it’s big, and one might have acted similarly (keeping some parts secret as Rossi has).

But the patent must be approved and there must be enough data -- all data must be published so that independent researchers can repeat the experiment. Then we can begin to sift through theoretical speculation and proceed to seek explanations.

Essén: It’s very hard to guard against someone who is lying in this context. It’s almost impossible for us to know. You try to evaluate the physics and then you assume that the data is presented as honestly as possible.

As a physicist you do this. Then as a human you can always have all sorts of sociological and psychological reflections on what lies behind it all.

https://www.nyteknik.se/energi…e-to-embrace-this-6421305

(emphasis mine)