Posts by Paradigmnoia

Negative COP dual coil device is found to have positive COP, but makes cold (negative T). At negative COP 300, device freezes to 0 K and turns to dust. Balancing device to COP (temperature) 0 at 60 Hz makes virtual cobalt-nickel rod appear in air core (possibly to balance the system?). More power makes a bigger rod. Attempting now at 79 Hz to try and make virtual gold rod appear.
Still can't figure out how to extract the rod from virtual state...

Thomas, IR can get you close, but not perfect. If the device was truly producing 3X the output in heat, then properly calibrated IR will not miss it. The most that can sneak by the IR camera using the long wave IR band is twice as much in total as measured in the long wave, at least in the range of 450 to 1400 C. (100% more heat than measured)
Complaining about the device being made of ceramic is silly. It is made of what it is made of.
Rossi is not, obviously, carrying out public science experiments. Complaints of lack of scientific rigour are therefore misplaced. These are demos, and you can take or leave what he says and shows.
Etc.
.

Some people like getting straight to business, but many like being buttered up flattered a bit first.

I usually start a letter to an unknown-to-me person that I would like some help from with some brief polite comments, like "Hi, I hope this letter finds you well... If you don't mind, I would like some of your time.... I read your reports with great interest and liked this and that point (and maybe a "I am unsure about this particular thing, but it is a neat idea")... (showing comprehension and having actually read the reports)"...etc.

Mr. Ahern, with all due respect, makes several points that are not appropriate.
IR is effective, and probably much more precise than the use of thermocouples on a large object with a non-isothermal surface temperature. That is if IR thermometry is done correctly, which requires a bit of calibration and testing. It is not as accurate as proper calorimetery, but neither is it as complex.
Certainly this proper calibration was not done, but the Professors are mostly to blame for this.
One can throw a tantrum at the Lugano report if it makes one feel better. But it does nothing to further the field or fix the problems in the report.

As far as the 1 MW test goes, [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] was a partner in this, and also has a say in the distribution timing of the report. They have shareholders to report to, etc.
The location of the test, the customer, the operational data may be released at some point. There are probably contractual details between Rossi and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon], as well as the ERV that must be respected. If after 6 months goes by without some more details, then maybe complaining might be justified, but will not likely lead to any sort of resolution.
Complaining about the ERV, without even knowing who the ERV is, is a bit premature.
Regarding his comment "Hoping that he has not fooled us again is a pathetic emotional response to the great impresario.", most of the comment seems like an emotional response, about half of which is directed at a report that isn't even available to evaluate yet, as if we in the peanut gallery are somehow obliged the results at all.
It took about 6 months for the Lugano report to be completed once the test was done, with delays due to assays partially, and that report has huge problems. I would rather whoever is responsible for the report takes their time and does a good job on it, than get a rushed POS. If another year goes by, then so be it.
There is more to life than worrying about Rossi et al., although it can be entertaining.

Just wait for me to return to my negative COP experiments.
I was putting almost 50% more power into dual heater coils, and not generating any extra temperature. (Needs more testing)

Perhaps the final product will be in demand by electrical utilities everywhere. Build it right into the electrical meter and maybe no one will notice...

You probably haven't got a reply yet because he is still reading it.

@H-G Branzell

Quote from H-G Branzell

Fabio Penon is 56 years old, could fit with "around 50- 55"

59 Years...

The author did manage to stay within the destructive limits of the thermocouples, so I hope Jiang teams up with him and re-does his version with the experience gained here, so that the Jiang experiment problems can be mitigated and we can see what was actually going on with his experiments more clearly.

IMO, the behavior of the innermost thermocouple compared to the outer thermocouple is consistent with a normal concentric tube-like insulated device at thermal equilibrium. The outer area is radiating heat faster than the inside, and a larger amount of material must heated on the outside, which slows the time required to reach thermal equilibrium. The inside has heat admitted radially from a larger circumference, which concentrates the peak temperature gradient towards the inside. The outer section has a much larger surface area than the inside from which to lose heat to the environment. (The thermal mass of the insulation might possibly be equivalent of that of the metal inside, due to it's much greater volume).
The inside T was just beginning to overtake the outer T at the top of the first heating ramp, and would have been more obvious if the T at both thermocouples had been allowed to come to equilibrium (flat line). The strongest "excess" only shows up at the flat portion at the tail of the heating curve, and additionally at temperatures where radiant heat transfer overtakes conduction as the primary mover of heat. The temperature where radiant heat transfer overtakes the conductive transfer is raised considerably (compared to open air heater wires) due to direct cementing of the heater coils to the ceramic vessel. Mulite also has decreasing thermal conductivity with increasing temperature, which can actually lead to thermal runaway in extreme cases, as heat accumulates inside, but cannot escape as quickly as it accumulates.

A hotter inside compared to outside occurs in every MFMP test, and all other similar tests I have seen, and is not at all unusual.
I don't think anything out of the ordinary is happening in this test.
I believe that the same mass of steel or iron shavings from a lathe could be substituted for the LAH-Ni fuel, and identical results obtained if the same heating profile is used.

we revolutioned the technology separating the activation from the E-Cat, making 2 separated apparatuses in the same house: mouse ( activator) and Cat. This has enhanced the efficiency of the E-Cat
-JoNP March 25, 2013
-----------
Q: Does the cat and mouse both utilize separate electrical resistance based heating elements, or is the resistance element utilized by the mouse/activator the only source of external heat in the entire ECAT?
A: the only source of external energy is the resistance of the Activator
-JoNP May 10, 2013
------------
The average COP of the activator is 1.02 – 1.1; the average COP of the E-Cat is from 100 to 200. Margin of error about 10%. The activator is turned on for about the 35% of the operation time. This is what we are getting from prototypes working in these days in the USA.
-JoNP May 10, 2013
-------------
Q: Could you, if possible, give us an idea of what the ratio of thermal output of the Ecat to thermal input to the activator is when both are active.
A: They are never active together.
-JoNP May 10, 2013
--------------
Activator and E-Cat never go at the same time.
-JoNP May 10, 2013
------------
while the activator is on the E-Cat is off. the E-Cat, when operates, is always in ssm. with this configuration, since the Activator has a COP that allows to produce energy equal or more ( even if slightly) to the energy consumed, the resulting COP is the one of the E-Cat, otherwise you can make the average, but at this point the concept of COP changes foundamentally.
-JoNP May 11, 2013
------------
Q: What is the power output of the Mouse?
A: this depends on the model of the apparatus. In the basic Hot Cat it is about 1 kW
-JoNP May 12, 2013
------------
Q: Have you run the Cat & Mouse configuration at temperatures higher than 350 degree Celsius? If so, what temperatures?
A: yes, up to 1 000 Celsius
-JoNP May 16, 2013
------------
Q: Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ?
A: No, the charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor; by the way: if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse vanishes.
-JoNP October 11, 2014

@Thomas Clarke
Regarding the comments by Wyttenbach: Rossi has said, possibly even before the Lugano results, that without SSM mode the distinction between the Cat and Mouse disappears. He also only claimed a COP of 1.1 for the Mouse. This may suggest that using the Lugano device without SSM (decided by the Professors) essentially only the Mouse operation was enabled.
(The screw up of the output was entirely by the Professors, since they were in charge, IMO. )
Therefore the low to no COP might be expected, and the strange isotopic results could be a product of the abnormal extended operation of what is supposed to be a brief stimulation effect.
This amongst many other theories..... But it does have some sort of consistent relation to comments made by Rossi.
I'll go dig up the Mouse comments for timing relative to the Lugano test period to see if they actually pre-date the test results and, more importantly, the beginning of the test.

@Thomas Clarke
I don't really know how to assess likelihood in such cases.
I can dream up a way to do what Rossi says, but the particulars are currently beyond my capabilities.
What if a method was developed whereby selective ionization could be performed on some materials that could selectively stimulate the emission of specific photon energy levels (colours), including IR? The freed electrons could be used to develop a current. As a basic premise, it is not too complicated. Engineering this would be complicated. The over unity part is one or more steps beyond for most folks, but is already a premise for our intrepid inventor.

@Thomas Clarke
The question of tuneable coloured light and selectable output of electricity and heat is not whether it is possible, or even if Rossi has that technology, but how can it be done? And can someone be inspired to make it happen?

Whether someone has made such a thing, and it is being kept secret for a while barely interests me at all. There is no way to verify or disprove the existence of such a fantastic devices if we are not insiders. Quoting physics principles to disprove such inventions without knowing the supposed principle(s) of operation is pointless. If there are ways of increasing the likelihood of such inventions, then these should be fostered. There will always be scammers and snake oil salesmen, but these can only be stopped with proof, not conjecture or trumpeting their past performances. Many criminals have moved on to productive lives. Former criminals are subject to higher scrutiny, while a person with a clean record might actually have a much better chance of pulling off a big scam, since suspicion is not arroused as easily. Certainly parading an endless spectacle very much in the public eye is a very peculiar way of avoiding suspicion.

lets see:

Quote from Thomas Clarke

"it is insulting to call Rossi a liar. And, yet, if not, anything he says must be accepted as true."
- false binary choice

I agree that there is often room for some middle alternative but contend in this case that the point is well made. The key matter at issue is whether e-cats work. Most here would I think agree that either Rossi is a liar (and lies over matters central to his business) or e-cats work in the sense of delivering easily measurable by any means plentiful excess heat. I'll admit your false binary choice only if you can propose some plausible middle ground on this question?

Calling someone a liar is almost always insulting (even if true). Not calling someone liar does not mean accepting everything they say as true. Perhaps there are a mix of truths and untruths. Perhaps our opinions or appraisals of the situation are not correct. Perhaps Rossi has something, but pretends to understand it better than he does. Perhaps he grossly underestimates the challenges in getting a product made from an anomalous effect. Lots of wiggle room, really.

-------------------

Quote from Thomas Clarke

"That will take you down an ECW-like rabbit-hole of inconsistency from which you can never emerge."
- slippery slope argument plus regressive fallacy

A casual reading of ECW will surely convince you of the Alice-in Wonderland world you enter when Rossi's statements are taken as true? "E-quark-Xs which can generate heat, electricity, and light - with the frequency of the light tunable read/blue/green".

Fantastic tales don't lead most people into some irreversible logic spiral or whatever you mean. The regressive fallacy is that the consequences of inconsistent stories can only get worse, not better. Perhaps enough inconsistencies might be cause for inspection of the story, rather than the slippery slope of permanent loss of a grip on reality. Even in sci-fi stories and faerie tales , the readers hate it when the hero uses some inconsistency, techno tool or magic previously unmentioned to save the day. Often it spoils the suspension of disbelief required to enjoy the story.

-----------------

Quote from Thomas Clarke

"if the rules here really mean that considering Rossi may be a fraud is verbotem, then the many here who reckon he must either be a fraud or have his claimed miracle will be unable to post anything except a one-sided version of events"
-slippery slope argument plus faulty induction
The argument is not induction, and not faulty. I think your point is that somone might consider Rossi could be a fraud but not articulate their reasons for that view. But that, while I'm sure it is often done, leads also to a one-sided version of events in which 20 demos are argued as evidence for Rossi's device working because the evidence for them not being true tests implies (in the minds of the discussants) that Rossi is a fraud and this is not allowed. You find this argument all over ECW and it is a clear distortion of the truth. The fact that in some people's minds it does not hold has no affect on the written record if the possibility of Rossi being fraudulent cannot seriously be written in a post.

Shortened for inspection in bold above: "If considering Rossi a fraud is verbotem[sic] then many will be unable to post anything except a one-sided version of events." I think that it can be seen that is silly. I think we can post on may subjects (to be somewhat ingenuous). We can discuss whether things he has said make sense, without discussing fraud, for example. Perhaps the slippery slope is a bit much, but it seemed inferred when I read it. I will agree to drop that.

etc.... so annoying to bother with reading or replying to further. Which is why the continuous quote and respond method has been shown to be the least persuasive method of of internet discussion in a study, BTW.

I freely admit that my post was mostly in jest, and that perhaps half of my statements cannot be properly substantiated.
I also freely abused several of the definitions to further my point. Not out of ignorance, but mostly out of laziness.

In particular the term "subtle undermining" was used incorrectly. Perhaps subliminal chicanery might be closer, but that suggests intent.

The type of comment that the term "subtle undermining" refers to correctly (in example only) goes like this:
"Thomas, unshaven and wearing unmatched socks, coolly responded to the accusations."

Edit: I also freely admit seeing an excess of the "If...then" unicorn tales on some other sites, and often even here.
If my grandmother had wheels, she could be a wheelbarrow....
I don't normally engage in those conversations much. Some of the gedanken experiments are useful or fun, though.

Primarily for my own amusement... don't take it too seriously, Thomas.

Quote

it is insulting to call Rossi a liar. And, yet, if not, anything he says must be accepted as true.

- false binary choice

Quote

That will take you down an ECW-like rabbit-hole of inconsistency from which you can never emerge.

- slippery slope argument plus regressive fallacy

Quote

if the rules here really mean that considering Rossi may be a fraud is verbotem, then the many here who reckon he must either be a fraud or have his claimed miracle will be unable to post anything except a one-sided version of events

-slippery slope argument plus faulty induction

Quote

If considering Rossi is a fraud is allowed, then it must be a matter of interpretation whether given evidence justifies a stronger statement.

-faulty induction

Quote

And, as you well know, many LENR supporters are as convinced as I am that Rossi is a flake

-partial defense does not equal support

Quote

Note my post above where I marshall the evidence MY relies upon that supports the contention that Rossi is a fraud. It is quite strong.

-Argumentum ad fatigum

Quote

Can you really tell the difference between these posts and MY's posts, other than in tone? In which case, for consistency, I should be banned. Perhaps that will happen.

-fuzzy distinction followed by faulty induction

Quote

For example: it is insulting to call Rossi a liar. And, yet, if not, anything he says must be accepted as true. That will take you down an ECW-like rabbit-hole of inconsistency from which you can never emerge. As I've pointed out above, if the rules here really mean that considering Rossi may be a fraud is verbotem, then the many here who reckon he must either be a fraud or have his claimed miracle will be unable to post anything except a one-sided version of events. If considering Rossi is a fraud is allowed, then it must be a matter of interpretation whether given evidence justifies a stronger statement. And, as you well know, many LENR supporters are as convinced as I am that Rossi is a flake. Note my post above where I marshall the evidence MY relies upon that supports the contention that Rossi is a fraud. It is quite strong. Can you really tell the difference between these posts and MY's posts, other than in tone? In which case, for consistency, I should be banned. Perhaps that will happen.

-subtle undermining

@Thomas Clarke
You seem to have debased your argument style to false binary choices and the dreaded slippery slope statements....
I had expected better, but perhaps this discussion is just flogging a dead horse by now, and you are just going through the motions of long replies, and not putting your heart into it anymore.

@Thomas Clarke
The site does not lose integrity by banning someone that agrees to the terms of use, then disrespects those terms. The site loses integrity by not enforcing the terms of use that are explicit.
Posters that agree to the terms of use, them immediately disobey them, demonstrate their own lack of integrity.

Both of us have posted things here that might not be in agreement with the general readership. But we have been civil enough to avoid censure for the most part. I think we both have also had posts removed when we crossed a line. For the most part, when that had happened, we were able to see what the infraction was, and have adjusted our responses accordingly.

Freedom of speech is almost never really free. We are not allowed to say whatever we want, whenever we want. In forums or in public. There are social rules, legal limits, and limits imposed by specific outlets for speech. If one is too arrogant or, too ignorant to follow the neccesary level of decorum and social standards when speaking, then there will be conflict. There are rules for dealing with that.

I notice that MY was just re-instated after a ban on ECN. So even there, the bounds were passed, and action taken. I don't know about the details that lead to a ban there. But why does this one person have such a predilection for censure from so many places, and yet so many other posters with unpleasant points seem to be able to stay within acceptable posting practices? Is it a complete lack of ability to recognize social clues and stay within civil bounds of discourse, or is the content?
Is it something else?

I don't know where folks get the idea that the forums are democratic.
They were created by people that wanted to discuss various things, and who have no desire for too much of other things.
ECW was created with the proviso that LENR and the Rossi Effect is real. That is an intentional bubble of like-minded people. Perhaps ECN moderates more than most, but that is solely at the discretion of the moderator there.
This forum is a bit more general, but has specfic rules of conduct. Obey them, read only, or take a hike. Those are essentially the choices, and can be enforced at the discretion of the moderators, as is their perrogative.
ECN is a bit wilder, and rarely moderated, but certain things like excess vulgarity and impersonation are not tolerated. To some extent, that forum is a bit of an Ostraocracy.

If anyone does not like the rules of the presently available forums, they can make their own forum.
If they think that is too much hassle, then deal with the rules at the existing forums.
Is it really that hard to figure that out?