Paradigmnoia Member
  • Member since Oct 23rd 2015

Posts by Paradigmnoia

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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)

    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.

    My improved Mizuno-like air flow calorimeter so far has had up to 420 W inside, and that heats the air by 32.5 C, so at STP the inside of the box is over 50 C. Another 350 W would raise the temperature an additional 28 C. 80 C isn’t too hot, but it’s a bit structurally worrisome inside a foam box full of incandescent lamps.


    Edit: This version of the calorimeter can record a sudden heat burst in less than 4 seconds (it only reports data every two seconds, but updates all data columns as fast as the program can do a check data loop. (Arduino). Basically a simple C++ program looks at all data channels in series and records the information it finds into an array, then looks to see if the next two-seconds increment is less than something like 150 ms away. If it is, it saves all the stored data in the array at that moment onto an SD card with a time stamp. It might miss a two-second update write every 5000 readings or so due to a data reading hiccup but the time check advance period can be tuned to avoid dropouts. (Adding several extra MAX6675 type thermocouple amplifiers than can only be read with a 250 ms delay between often causes hiccups). The temperature channel data are outputted by RS232 every second, each channel sequentially, from a separate multichannel thermocouple data logger into the main logger, which is looking for and decoding temperature channel words from the RS232 connection each loop. The thermocouple data logger updates it’s channels about every half second and then loads words into the buffer (9600 baud) so the main program scoops them out as fast as it finds anything there. The SD card data from the main program can be compared to the independent SD card temperature data from thermocouple data logger the by time stamps, (both synchronized to a laptop before beginning) which allows a bit better resolution than either log individually, as well as cross-corroborating the temperature data. The thermocouple data logger has a common cold junction for a set of 4 matched thermocouples, and can do several types of thermocouples and RTDs so it is better than just thermocouples each with their own kit amplifier. A couple of single thermocouples with amplifiers are also used for redundancy and testing various things without messing with the important channels.


    Doubling the air flow rate should approximately double the heat handling capacity of a mass air flow calorimeter but at the expense of equally halving the sensitivity (W per delta T).

    Can you describe your method of achieving LENR?

    I made no LENR. I simply tested some common designs and hit them with an electrically-powered burst of heat (100 to 350 W typical) by flipping a switch on to a Kanthal coil inside a device.


    Most cylinder type designs fail very quickly with an extra kick of heat. 350 W doesn't bother much a 1300 W design unless it is already maxed out but it sure wrecks a < 500 W design quickly. If the heat were more localized, it would be a quicker failure. If the heat cannot be evacuated at least as fast as it comes in... that's it.


    Trying some quick tests like this before going active experiment can prevent some dangerous surprises. It's not easy to watch a calorimeter whirring away for hours and days. It has to be safe enough to leave for a while. A thermal breaker is a good idea where it can shut off power if things get too hot to handle.

    Do you see how the roll of tape X-ray generator works now?

    That is rather sad.

    The physical feasibility, or not, of handling the amount of total heat and temperatures claimed for a device is a useful tool to sort out some of the more fantastic (literally) designs offered by inventors.


    I spent some time a few years ago testing some designs and adding sudden extra heat (secondary heat coil, etc) and most designs failed almost instantly by cracking or melting down.

    I have built test devices that were up to 1800 W and 1500 C that handled a fair bit of heat abuse, so it is more of a design plan problem rather than a materials problem. It can be done.


    Most real LENR experiments, however, are simply not made for such high power levels.