Posts by Paradigmnoia

Quote from sam12

This Video is beyond my pay rate but if anyone wants to have a go at it here it is.

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

An old story goes that in ancient times a blind artist paced the Old St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and sketched an excellent drawing of it in near-perfect perspective. Most artists at the time that could see, couldn’t paint or draw in proper perspective to save their skins.

Hot wire anemometers also have a Q and because they are actively heated to maintain a temperature to do the measurement they are sensitive to air velocity and especially turbulence.

Quote from Frogfall

Looking at the rest of the report, I would say it was simply down to incompetence (and that is being kind).

As you pointed out, there is no record of the flow rate they supposedly recorded. And you are right that if the inlet temperature was measured at a throttle point, then the venturi effect would reduce the temperature seen by the thermocouple.

Of course there is no record of the power taken by the airpump, which is all part of the system - as the unit would not work without it. As mentioned above, measuring the inlet air temperature does not allow them to ignore the pump power.

Another glaring error is in not carrying out a measured run without the arc - just with the air flowing. This would have at least shown the temperature distribution caused by the airflow itself.

Allied to the above is the issue of exit thermocouple placement. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the "vortex tube" has a natural propensity to create a radial gradation across the exit. Ideally there should have been a long diffuser between the unit and the temperature sensors - so that the exit air could mix properly. Placing thermocouples at the immediate exit, as they have done, will subject them to massive inaccuracies, depending on their position in the flow (i.e. the edge will be hot, and the centre will be cold - just from the cyclone/vortex effect).

Bizarrely, there is even a section in the report which acknowledges that very point:

That quoted section above, on its own, completely invalidates the entire report.

The measurement of the electrical power going to the arc is another issue, but it isn't even worth going into that.

Display More

My thoughts on a mild Venturi effect was that the apparent air flow rate could be measured with high accuracy but not actually measuring a representative velocity zone, more than trying to cool a TC. If the air temperature has stabilized in the outlet then the air velocity shouldn’t affect the temperature at the thermocouple meaningfully.

My coolest invention for the Mizuno-style mass air flow calorimeter I built was a velocity diffuser in the outlet that left the air flow going very smoothly at the exit. It has a wider chamber that the inlet of the outlet pipe entered partly into, an internal gap of about 20 cm, and then the final outlet pipe exited from partly inside the chamber, sort of like a fat glass pack muffler with the fibres blown out. The whole thing was about 60 cm long and made of thin commercial cardboard mailing tubes. The tubes stuck into the larger chamber were held in place with two opposite facing, gapped, overlapped foam tubing rings that fit the gap between the different diameters and also sealed the pieces. It can be taken apart and put back together like giant Lego.

The temperature distribution was always pretty good with no meaningful difference detected at the outlet locations. Measuring velocity at the outlet before the muffler was added was a nuisance due to complex velocity distribution. The plan was to permanently install a vane meter but that turned into a rabbit hole. Vane airflow meter manufacturers rarely discuss the Q of the meter, but it sure matters when one tries to stick it inline to a pipe… The short version is that around a pipe, vane anemometers can read almost anything you want it to, which for me is too arbitrary for a measurement.

10 years ago when I was new to lurking around LENR sites, I would see A on the vortex and think, “Gosh, how can he know such solid details of all these paradigm-breaking devices and how they function?”. He wrote so factually, and was sincere in his interest for sure. Now I am sure he is baiting a challenge to his facts so an intense philosophical conversation might ensue on the deep roots of LENR with an equally-equipped conversationalist. And so he bides his time…

Quote from Curbina

All this goes to show that is never simple to perform any of these tests. Proving intention to deceive is another complete matter. Taking care of checking every possible source of error, and constrain it, is the only way to go, but with anything that requires to meassure air flow on the mix, the error bars can be huge.

The error bars can be as messy or clean as one cares to make them with air flow, and generally everything else. Half of the automobiles on the planet (billions) measure air flow with very high accuracy and precision every moment they are turned on.

Quote from Frogfall

Hi Kieran,

That is the "revised" IEP report. It differs, a bit, from from the version on the ENG8 website back on October 24th - which was this one:

IEP-REPORT-117-Augst-2023_signed.pdf

On September 21st, ENG8 issued a note about the retraction and revision:

ENG8 EnergiCell Q Value Revised Down.pdf

See below. The original table is on the left, the latest on the right:

Both reports are a travesty, for a variety of reasons. I'll write a bit more about this later today.

Display More

How did the heat capacity error slip in? How long have they used the hot value?

Quote from orsova

Are the left and right hand singing from different hymn sheets? Perhaps. But that doesn't mean there's anything untoward going on, operationally speaking.

They come across as completely making stuff up, and that is not good.
The big module was exactly the size of however many 350 W modules and these were well on the way a whole back and now we are working on the 35 W modules of which I will step out and guess that ten of these go into a 350 W module, ad infinitum, so the 35 W will constructed of yet to be designed 3.5 W and 0.35 W units therein.

There are those who believe that they can influence the universe towards a result. That then infers that such a thing could be reversed and the universe might impress its will upon lowly humans or other life forms. And surely, if that were true, then the universe would impress upon us all a much better outlook upon ourselves and each other, and towards other life forms and generally push towards our better good. But the cold uncaring universe just keeps spreading out into infinity without such thing as a thought to anyone or anything. Until it spreads out so thin it goes full cycle and breaks infinity to start over again with a slightly different something-or-other, or maybe gets eaten by the giant spaghetti monster or a denizen of a pineapple under the sea. I dunno.

Quote from Shane D.

You are being evasive, but suppose you could control input/output, and also the "quantity of insufflate air" as IEP says (whatever that means), could they fool someone else other than you? If so, how?

Increase the air velocity with a small restriction (Venturi effect) at the measurement point, measure airflow rate distribution wrong. I did a lot of work on that and it is the easiest part to get problems with. Temperature probes in non-representative locations, air leaks, calculation errors, and assumptions of all sorts can lead to bad results. Lack of calibration, blanks, ringers, and testing the device for the best and most representative sites to measure. Changing a slight thing from blank to active run, like a cover left off, or making tea next to the air inlet…

Ed: If fooling someone is the name of the game, then the sky is barely the limit for tomfoolery. If something is real, you can test it until the Sun swallows the Earth in 4 billion years and it won’t matter. The net result will be the same. And whoever has discovered it will gladly help you show that it is not an error with whatever tests are reasonably done. That doesn’t mean that they are right. The universe has already decided that in absolute, impasionate indifference.

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, we have a document. But, like you, we are still waiting for that "upcoming UL version"...as you say.

While we wait, the IEP's disclaimer states:

"The IEP’s personnel, that assisted and audited the in loco measurement process, treated all the EnergyCell system as a black box. We only did control the injected electric energy, the quantity of insufflate air and the outputted thermal energy. From that, using the relevant standard constants, we accessed the CoP values".

Question for our members, i.e. Paradigmnoia , is: can you rig a black box so that the observer can control the input/output, along with air flow, such that the observer is fooled?

Display More

I missed the part in the report where they measure air flow somehow

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, we have a document. But, like you, we are still waiting for that "upcoming UL version"...as you say.

While we wait, the IEP's disclaimer states:

"The IEP’s personnel, that assisted and audited the in loco measurement process, treated all the EnergyCell system as a black box. We only did control the injected electric energy, the quantity of insufflate air and the outputted thermal energy. From that, using the relevant standard constants, we accessed the CoP values".

Question for our members, i.e. Paradigmnoia , is: can you rig a black box so that the observer can control the input/output, along with air flow, such that the observer is fooled?

Display More

The easiest person to fool is oneself. The next easiest person to fool is a fool.

I guess the real answer is that if the chain of measurements is sufficient to cross check the important measurements, then it doesn’t matter if one is a fool or being fooled, the results should be foolproof.

Quote from orsova

I don’t know how it works in Japan, but in the US there are severe restrictions on how net operating loss carry forwards can be used and transferred.

True, and I know nothing of Japanese finance.
Most North American stock market mining exploration companies lose money forever until they roll back the stock, bleed out and repeat until no one will give them any more money, and that is considered standard practice. New energy research can’t be too more likely to find something to sell than junior would-be miners are.

It just seems that the front office and back work zones aren’t communicating to each other very well and so fantastic stories are sometimes told by the public facing part, albeit with probably a kernel of facts lost in there somewhere.

Quote from Shane D.

It would be nice if they made it easy for us to know if there has been a change, instead of us having to dig for it. A simple "this is what we said last year, and this is what we improved on, or didn't" would suffice. That includes both their research, and PR departments.

MFMP has been a good example for others to follow on being totally open. But understandably, those based on a business model, have other factors to consider.

A jaded view might be that the company is a charity to fund LENR stuff disguised as a business so that the inevitable research=investment losses can be more easily written off against profits from somewhere else.

Quote from magicsound

I named them "axilons" a few years back. He never even thanked me, but it didn't catch on anyway.

Here's what I wrote on 1 April 2019 about MFMP's hypothetical LENR-powered air conditioner:

"Using an orthogonal quantum vortex, thermal input is transferred by conduction to anti-electron neutrinos, which then disperse the absorbed heat into cross-dimensional space. The quantum vortex is made of stabilized chrono-polaritons, created by our proprietary Axilon beam line. A Hilsch mode thermal diode prevents the heat from returning through the dimensional gate."

I mentioned axilons once on ECW and Axil popped up for a reply so quick it was like it was on Google alert.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Oh, the second link uses the same tense of ‘completion’ for 2024 as for 2018.

Now I doubt the 350 W completion and the 8*350 W prototype have been completed.

So, no change?

Quote from h_l

We know that fresh sock puppet comments on rossilivecat.com are sometimes initially displayed as a post from Rossi only containing the letter "a". The post links to the sock puppet on JONP. After a while the "a" post changes into the original sock puppet comment. The whole procedure is probably due to some kind of bug in the script that fetches the comments from JONP. I assume that the correction is then done by hand by the admin of rossilivecat (which would make him a collaborator in this pathetic sock puppet game).

Lately the "a" changed to some kind of count, 1 2 3 4...The script might have been altered to avoid the "a" but now displays numbers instead, kind of weird. I missed no. 3.

Rossilivecat has nothing to do with AR other than the site reads his site.

You can look at each post on the actual JoNP (not the reader site) by clicking the link on the reader or going there yourself, and generally the real post is there, and not a letter, on JoNP.

Whether the bug is caused by changing posts in a way that bothers the reader script is possible but the writer of the script and member of the forum could probably answer those questions better had they not been insulted along the way…

(It’s not me)

Quote from Alan Fletcher

I've given up on trying to figure out what "NGU" even is. Similar questions get "yes" and "no" answers.

Maybe it’s …. NG4U

Quote from RobertBryant

Mother Nature says no to radioactivity,,

LOL. Where did they think they found it?

Quote from Alan Fletcher

True RMS power meter?

Those were the Wild West days…

*sigh*

“There is nothing unusual if you would just stop dividing that by three!”

Quote from RobertBryant

I'd like to make a Seebeck calorimeter a la Storms maybe with a spare Arduino

12W capacity should be a good start..

but I may forgo the classic homesoldered 1000 thermocouple version

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtomakea.pdf

What is your W/kg of fuel

Display More

There have been some real nice Seebeck calorimeters built in the past couple of years. It is tempting for me to build one.
My original point was to test Mizuno’s calorimeter. Then I made it better.

More to the point, I made it easy to duplicate without a large amount of skill or money, which I always aspire to, because I believe that much of the science that can be made accessible should be so people can try it and see it for themselves without undue hardship. I try and work through and solve the hard parts so it isn’t so hard for the next person.