The stupid thing is that a blackbody is not a secret spectrum, so all AR ever had to do was show one. The stupid spectrum in the SK demo, and stories of potent VUV radiation with the QX makes me and should make everyone wonder where the blackbody (or greybody) is. So now if Rossi suddenly comes up with a blackbody it will only be because he ‘forgot’ to show one earlier than this very moment, Saturday April 28 2019.
And right on cue, Prof declares that Rossi is so right with his abysmally wrong plasma measurements...
I think the correct values should populate the calculator with this link.
The Cylinder2 casting looks great. It is 6.5 cm long this time (1 mm shorter than Cylinder1).
Should not then there be Muons pouring out of Jupiter, or is the distance to far for them to escape the planet’s atmosphere?
Remember Bert Abbing and his Total Normal Emissivity rant?
Or Rossi’s mostly-capital-letters rant about the C2 cable power splitting, wrongly invoking Kirchhoff’s law for a delta wiring arrangement?
JPR (formerly JCR) is of course a Rossi sock puppet
Rossi will fight for his wrong position on the applicability of Wein’s Displacement Law on a non-blackbody and the resultant abuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with all the tools at his disposal because to do otherwise undermines the masterpieces of both the QX and SK demos, as well as gaslighting the Lugano emissivity problem from which the T4 abuse was learned and taken to the absurd level for the QX and SK.
I decided that I should replicate myself. I have poured another Cylinder made as closely as possible to the original. Unfortunately the internal and external thermocouples are not matched (from the same wire) like last time, but the rest should be essentially the same. The coil is slightly smaller in diameter by a couple mm also. That may or may not help prevent the outside from splitting from the coil layer. One way to find out...
how could you get an error in amperes by measuring the voltage?
The amperage shown on the Kill-A-Watt was compared to that of the Fluke at different control box output voltage settings, at whatever amperage that resulted. The output voltage is controlled by a SSVR acting like a triac, fed by nominally 120 V AC. The difference between the KAW meter and the Fluke meter was greater at lower control output voltage settings, and therefore lower currents. The Fluke was used to measure current both before the control box and the output. The output amps and utility side input amps are nearly identical at all output voltage settings used (typically 0.01 A higher on the output side).
It is very unfortunately that it happened now.
Don't know if you have still enough Durapot to make a new cylinder.
Nevertheless you provided the data of your previous measurements. Thanks for that.
Currently I am in the process doing FEM simulations on your rod and have discovered that there needs to be adaptions with respect to the thermal conductivity curve for Durapot .
This hopefully will bring measured data and the simulations more in line, but the current results are not too far off either.
I am however running out of time since I will be a few weeks away to Italy.
So it may be some time before I can provide a new update.
It is unfortunate that the Cylinder is dead, but I suppose I will make another. I am considering whether I should change anything or make the new one the same. I have a spare coil and plenty of Durapot, and some new thermocouples here.
At least I was able to double-check the data from before, and the older data seems pretty solid. I also now have better data on the controller power consumption.
I am heading out for a while also quite soon, so probably no new experiments for a month, even if I get a new cylinder completed over the next week. I will compile the data I have in the meantime.
While repeating several power steps as used previously and checking current with the new Fluke meter, the Cylinder coil failed on one end while starting measurement of the 400 W step. After determining for a few seconds that the thermocouples were not shorting out, I turned the voltage to maximum to see if a Nernst glow could be achieved. The coil failure area glowed for an extended time, but it did not seem that it was being increased by the extra voltage. Resistance of the alumina was measured through the broken coil while still 1000 C and found to be several thousand ohms, rapidly increasing as it cooled, to the megaohm range before becoming too much to measure.
The Kill-A-Watt was found to be reporting only about 0.1 A higher than the Fluke meter reported at low output voltages (35-50 V AC) and the gap decreased as the voltage increased. Voltage was essentially the same. The Kill-A-Watt meter is only used on the electrical outlet to power controller connection (pure sine). So for total input power, the KAW unit seems quite accurate.
I pulled a brick out from below the Cylinder to make convection work freely, and picked up another true RMS meter to monitor current downstream of the controller at the same time as the voltage. That should allow the controller power consumption to be measured properly and give better measurements of the Cylinder power consumption. I am looking for one of those cable splitter blocks for the outlet to double-check the Kill-A-Watt measurements. (I might have the parts to make one).
Electrical universe challenged offical view of of the origin of the Moon's craters. Now I want an explanation why most of them are round from the mainstream before they get to objects in other galaxies.
The reason that craters on the moon are round is due to the extreme velocities of the impactors. The impact energy is dissipated in an explosion due to the very high heat generated by the sudden stopping of the impactor releasing the stored kinetic energy.
So even a very shallow angle impact which would otherwise leave an elongated impact mark leaves a round hole centered where the impactor explodes, which then obscures the original elongated impact mark made only fractions of a second earlier.
To me his writings were always part poetry, Greek mythology, politician, and then he gets to the science part. He is getting old, and maybe the science part is not so clear as you say, but that would beyond my experience level to determine.
I don’t mean the science part, or even the content specifically. It’s like a stream of consciousness first draft. Or note cards for a speech that we missed.
I don’t mean to be hard on the guy. But I am sure he is capable of a much better job. I hope he is OK.
This popped up on Rossi's JONP:
I no longer pay attention to the site, much less reference papers from there, but in this one instance it caught my eye so forgive me. For those new to the LENR/Rossi addiction, a certain physicist/Greek politician named Stremmenos, has been intricately involved with LENR since well before Rossi, and became his advocate only later, after playing many roles in Rossi's rise to infamy/fame...take your pick. Here is his bio:
Christos STREMMENOS is a retired Professor of the Department of Physical and Inorganic
Chemistry of the Faculty of Industrial Chemistry in the University of Bologna. He has served as
Ambassador of Greece in Italy (1982-1987), and has been awarded the title of “Cavaliere di
Gran Croce al Merito” of the Italian Republic. In the University of Bologna, and in the National
Technical University of Athens he has taught Molecular Spectroscopy, Applied Spectroscopy
and Photochemistry. From the beginning of his academic career to the assumption of his duties
as Greek Ambassador, his research work was in the field of spectroscopy of solid and liquid
crystals, of their static and dynamic structures. After his mission at the Embassy of Greece in
Rome was completed, he started to work in the field of nuclear reactions between nickel and
hydrogen or deuterium, trying to reproduce the Fleishmann - Pons experiment and achieving
This paper is up to date, although there are older references no longer applicable. Some good science is added in, and may I add that Stremmenos is tapped into the Swedes/Levi, and all those in the European Rossi circle?
I read that today. It seemed... a fair bit less clear than examples of his writing I have read before. Maybe it is a translation thing. Although I doubt that it is a paper from someone impersonating Stemmenos, it still left me wondering if he had written it when I got to the end.
There was a show I saw many years ago about an elderly couple who were volcano experts (vulcanauts they called themselves) and their dream was to witness a pyroclastic flow. Their dream came true, and they were incinerated.
Besides the diameter issue, there was also the correction for the value of the view factor.
This had an implication for the emissivity correction.
Also the view factor had to be used in combination with the area of the finned tube, not the area of the bare tube.
After these corrections it was shown that the COP value of 1 in TC's report was not anymore.
If you are stating that there was too much uncertainty in this experiment, then we can not accept the conclusions of TC's report since it was based on that experiment (with much uncertanty.)
There is another important emissivity correction that will bring the paper to it’s knees.
Plus it deals with the Recursive Dummy vs the Dot-Calibrated Dummy. There are both.
Tears for the careers tarnished by the Lugano report.
The Ones Who Knew should have said something before it became too late.
Bumping this over here...
As always, thanks for your terrier-like pursuit of technical data. I was not aware of that image: you are right, it is revealing.
In the interests of accuracy I'm going to disagree with part of what you say, though not the overall conclusion.
If that picture is genuinely one of the December test then I think we can definitively answer Jed's point about not knowing anything wrong with that test, and even say what the issue was.
Those, like Alan, who believe Rossi's stuff sometimes work might perhaps consider that Rossi's innacuracy in doing experiments is so high that he could never possibly know himself the difference between working and not working. There is juts no evidence out there his stuff is more than parlour tricks of a specifically scientific variety.
The Ferrara tests where document as two significant test runs: December and March. They are different (in lots of ways). Like any magician, Rossi has a habit of ringing the changes.
In the December test run the report says:
So, from the report: the entire calculation comes from the (integrated power) WH measurement from the PCE-830. This is then divided by 96 (the test time in hours) to get the inferred power consumption.
They know power was output at the same rate throughout the experiment because the output was shown there the whole time from the 1s per frame time lapse photography.
This test has TCs for temperature so I'm not inclined to think there are big errors on the output side.
You might think that because (to get a constant output) a constant input is needed, and anyway if not constant the total energy in vs total energy out is all that matters, this instrumentation is pretty good. That, I'm sure, is what Jed thought.
The problem is that those checking this experiment were not experts in AC power measurement - or if they were trusted Rossi to have a vaguely sane setup.
The photo shows Rossi's setup to be not vaguely sane. The negative PFSigma and PWSigma show that at the time this photo was taken the power was drawn from two phases with reversed clamps (it would not be reasonable for the control box in reality to source power back into the mains supply).
The positive WH indication shows that for some of the test power must go through a phase with a correct polarity clamp.
The report notes that the control box switches power in some proprietary (= don't ask questions about it) way, but that the total power remains the same. That may be true, but because of the partly reversed clamps that photo is absolute proof that the WH indication (the only one used by the experiment checkers) will read lower than expected.
So we have positively identified a Rossi-esque false positive for this (December Ferrara) experiment.
Some details (a little speculative, but I think the logic is solid):
No-one needs to change the clamps. In the photo phase 31 has a maximum real power of < 38W (however measured + or -). Phases 12 & 23 have a negative real power (both with reversed clamps) because the total negative power can only be obtained at the stated total negative PF if both phases contribute. Note that the average power-weighted PF over all phases is -0.48, but the max (absolute value) PF for any phase is -0.52, which means both of the high actual power PFs must be close to -0.5, and therefore also the 31 phase PF must be positive (clamp the correct way round).
The control box can deliver a constant large power with a measured much lower WH energy, by switching between power through 12 & 23 (as here) and power through 31. All that is needed to get the stated 360W average is for switching to have the correct duty cycle to make the positive 31 contribution slightly more than the negative 12 & 32. Note that the voltages are weird: this is not mains line voltage: I guess measurements were done on the black box output.
Speculative notes on the March Test
The March test was different in quite a number of ways, and (typically for Rossi) exhibited a much lower COP. My guess (very speculative) is that the absent testers (only Levi was present) noticed some anomalies in the power measurements, or at least raised questions of a possible loophole. Therefore it was decided to redo the test closing those loopholes. (Wisely, given we have positive evidence of such an error). From the March test part of the Ferrara report (linked above):
The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves.
Which opens the possibility that the voltage measurement and current measurements in the December test were from different sides of the control box? They clearly did not trust the readings.
What is notable is the COPs obtained:
Pout = 2034, Pin = 360, COP=5.6
Note that a Pin of 2034 would lead to COP=1, and this is plausible given the QSigma of 1.96kVAR (we cannot trust power calculation from phases and therefore also cannot trust the stated PF).
Weird switched system, with duty cycle of 35%.
Interesting that if the system were not switched the COP would be 1. Not enough data on this system however to be clear what is the false positive mechanism. Notice however that for these tests, where there was at least some level of external supervision, Rossi completely changed his setup - moving to a more complex system - more difficult to analyse - but with lower performance, for his repeat test. That is very suspicious!
Here is the source of the photo. Taken by the author of the story during a visit on Dec 14 2012. (small PDF)
I think I now have an idea of what is going on, intuitively. It will be complicated to demonstrate, but it should deal with the funky early ecat power.
1) There are four wires hooked up to the pre-flange type ecat.
2) Italy wiring code for 3 phase is:
The resistors are wired in series (apparently) but hooked up with 3 phases and a neutral. The meter is hooked up as though it is 3 phase 3 wire. Now think about that arrangement with probably the blue neutral hooked to a series connection (double wires into a connection block from the cylinder end). Imagine short phase angle control pulses for 360 W and 810 W longer pulses of 3 phase AC being fed into that arrangement. The current flow patterns in those cases I think could be quite complex. (I'll draw a little picture in a bit.)
The November test with the hot spot was hooked up the same.