Posts by Paradigmnoia

Quote from Mark U

OK, I understand now. But I'm not seeing a problem. The electrical measurement of voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor leads one to calculate the current in the circuit, which of course will be the same everywhere, including the load. If you're seeing a problem, please be explicit.

Right. The current is correct.

The problem is that Rossi also uses the the voltage from the 1 ohm resistor as the entire circuit voltage, as well as for calculating the total circuit current.

What he is actually doing is calculating the power dissipated in the 1 ohm resistor. Then he uses that as the entire circuit power.

And also the spectrometer Rossi uses is fully capable of integrating the radiant power received.

No need to abuse Wien's Law or make Planck roll in his grave.

Quote from Mark U

Yeah I believe Wien's law was misused and abused, made to fit the calorimetry result. As long as the calorimetry was OK, I'll take it.

About your 1 ohm simulator. You have it in parallel with the load. That would defeat the purpose. Or is that your point, that this is what you think Rossi was actually doing?

The 1 ohm is in series with the load (10k ohm here). Change whatever you like, just leave the 1 ohm resistance as your measurement location for all electrical measurements.

Feel free to remove the voltmeter and just hover the mouse over the 1 ohm for information.

Here:

http://tinyurl.com/ughe3xe

.

Quote from LeBob

Supposedly 38w input, since we are in this thread might as well work with what you have.

Supposedly is not a measurement.

This image shows what is supposedly ~360 W input.

Instead it shows the ecat producing over 1 kW, and was totally ignored by the Professors. They have no comment since 10 years.

.

Quote from LeBob

I said what I said because we don't know the output. People just assume its the same as the SK which it most likely is less than.

We don't know the input, and don't know the output.

What a revolutionary device!

Quote from LeBob

COP comes from knowing the output of the individual claimed liter sized apparatus as well as input.

And we know of this from....?

Quote from Mark U

But I'm giving Rossi the benefit of the doubt and assuming he isn't grossly mismeasuring the electrical energy input and output.

Of course he is!

Did you not try this 1 ohm simulator? It does a COP of 10000 Rossi style. Just add abuse of Wien's Law and bump it to 22000 COP Rossi style.

http://tinyurl.com/quva6f8

.

Quote from LeBob

I'm just above it and I wont emphatically state anyone is a liar or fraud untill their claims contradict the most basic tested assumtions of physics.

Did we not just go over a few of the contradicted laws of physics four days ago?

I meant to attach this earlier.

Sense resistor simulator.

Change voltage or resistance (the 10k only), but only use the 1 ohm for measurements. You can peek at the other values to see the potential fake COP.

Currently it is set for a COP of 10000, while showing the same voltage at the 1 ohm as for the Gullstrom paper.

http://tinyurl.com/rsatrbq

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Pretty smart of Rossi you have to admit. I think most of his IP relates to mind control of the gullible.

Proof of ESP not LENR?

Quote from Mark U

1. Holding back top secret info from whomever he might be currently working with? Maybe, maybe not. But Rossi has said that in the event of his death, people on his team will be able to carry on his work, so it would seem he is not holding back to certain people he trusts. All speculation of course, with no real evidence as you say.

2. He may have use for his old IP in order to establish continuity with his present, expanding IP, making for more airtight protection. Again, speculation.

3. If electricity from plasma is frippery, then I want frippery, especially if it is at about 70 percent efficiency as Rossi alleges. For demonstration purposes it would become a self sustaining electrical system in a small package, no heat turbines and electrical generators needed. End game one way or another it seems to me.

One of Rossi’s IP secrets is measuring voltage on a three phase system from phase to neutral, but connecting the device phase to phase.

Quote from Shane D.

Yes, he did get his Ecat LT (low temp) IP back, then promptly announced there was no longer a demand for it, because his customers wanted to wait for his newer version...the QX I believe it was? The same model the secret customers (still under NDA) have been using for over a year now, that he controls from his portable headquarters. It has a neutron detector on top of it.

Anyway, I believe we had some debate back then if there was any IP to get back from IH? The only approved patent Rossi has is the "Fluid Heater". That patent described one of the many fuels it could run off of, was the "Energy Catalyzer" -which is the real meaning of Ecat. The only other approved LENR patent Rossi had, was his Italian one. I believe he let that one lapse a few years back.

Is it IP, if there is no patent?

Why have not hundreds of people been busy replicating the Fluid Heater patent?

It is supposed to work, isn’t it?

Quote from JedRothwell

The U.S. had by far the largest 1-day increase, 1776. I would like to think this is mainly because of increased testing, but I doubt that. I believe many of the cases listed in the tally were never tested for.

This is 1.38 times yesterday's count.

The problem is that test results generally just give an idea of where things were 5 to 10 days ago, unless random tests of the population are done. Since testing is usually reserved for those with symptoms and more often with symptoms combined with other medical issues that suggest a person is at a large risk of serious health danger, the non-symptomatic but infected population keep unwittingly spreading the virus further. So (1.38⁵ * present cases) might be a rough estimate of actual present infected persons.

Quote from LeBob

The absolute best case scenario and the absolute worst case scenario are rarely the ones that occur statistically. You make a fair point, but if they produce a COP of 22000 and intuitively find that acceptable from observing the machine running producing power then there probably is a memorable significant COP.

The case that statistically occurs most often is COP 1, within the uncertainty of the method used (correctly).

That same case is also used, correctly, to make sure that the measurement method being used is actually working properly.

This is the case that statistically does not occur in Rossi demonstrations and reports. Sometimes it looks like it was done, but somehow the same conditions as the ‘miracle’ are not realized when looked at more closely.

Quote from LeBob

Thanks! So even with shoddy measurements it's still possible to have a more reasonable COP of 14 or 200 plugging along even if the optimistic false calculations said 2200.

If the person measuring does such a bad job that a COP of 14 can’t be told from one of 22000, then what makes 14 more likely than 1.00001 ?

Quote from LeBob

Declaring things impossible when multiple means of attaining the specs have been proposed seems premature. Just saying, it may not be him, but saying a portable device with more energy density than standard chemical sources, outputting electricity and heat, is impossible is closed minded. This is irrigardless of if anyone has it or not.

No, nothing at all like that.

It is impossible for Wien’s Law to be used without a blackbody or greybody. It simply does not work with a few scattered spectral peaks. That’s just a fact. It does not matter what the source of light is.

Then pretending that the few spectral peaks can be treated as a blackbody or greybody is also wrong. Whether the spectra comes from a star, a hair drier, or an axilon enforcer makes no difference.

Etcetera for the Kirchhoff circuit laws. One cannot calculate the correct total circuit power only from measuring a sense resistor. I made a handy circuit on Circuit Simulator to demonstrate this quite clearly.

Combine these ingredients badly, and a COP (Rossi Style) of 22000 is easy, even if one is ‘conservative’ and rounds a few things here and there.

Quote from LeBob

Specifics would be good, but I see were your reasoning springs from.

The specifics are spread around this thread, but if you have questions I can attempt to answer as best I can if there is something in particular that you are unclear on.

Quote from LeBob

I was referencing Wein's law and Planck's law. Something about blackbody radiation, frequency and temperature.

All of Rossi’s plasma devices rely on the misuse of Wien’s Law, abuse of Planck’s Law, and finally complete refusal of Kirchhoff’s circuit laws in order to function as Rossi claims.

Quote from LeBob

Idk the exact example you are refering too?

There is a difference in describing the frequency emission of a reaction and the actual visible heat exchanger's frequency or temperature. The reaction materials would be mixed with catalysts and what have you, idk, have down conversion and such. There is also people expecting nuclear energy spectra and not seeing it because the phenomina is different. Surface area?

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.
I refer to most of what Rossi considers adequate physical proof of his claims.

Quote from LeBob

Hypothetically what laws of physics are being broken in a device with stats like his claim?

Wien’s Law and Planck’s Law, for starters.

Although not exactly a law of physics, Kirchhoff circuit laws are also highly assaulted.