randombit0 Member
  • Member since Apr 27th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by randombit0

    Here is a good place to start:

    Mr Paradigmoia..... apparent means not real

    One have to use those formulas only if is using a completely different type of measurement (two narrow bands) that we use from space satellites in order to recalculate the actual (total) emissivity of the terrain ( and discover nice things like military installations ).

    You seem unable to understand that or most probably you don't want to!

    No more food for Trolls here babe !

    I have done many measurements, which gives the the experience to know when someone is bullshitting regarding that type of measurement.

    Yes and that the guy who is making error is you. You seem the one and the only to have done this test. But you forget that others have done this test also and do not publish the results simply because:

    1) The results say clearly that Total Emissivity is the parameter to use. (so is an obvious result)

    2) People don't want to feed Trolls like you.

    BTW we have done it and the result demonstrate that Lugano was correct, Now feel free to insult us as usual for Trolls.

    I only ask that the perpetuation of the myth of the correct use of total emissivity for the IR camera specific emissivity user function during the Lugano "reactor" test (and in addition the stupid reiteration nonsense using the total emissivity plot) be buried once and for.

    Is not a Myth (a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.) but a scientific fact.

    You are just asking serious people to feed you as Troll or other Trolls to pretend they had your same result.

    Well, I tested it. I once again suggest everyone test it.

    TC was right within a very small margin of error.

    Heat up an alumina tube to glowing, use the Lugano Protocol, and get a "COP" of around 3 to 4.

    Then stick a thermocouple on the tube, correct the IR camera or even IR "gun" emissivity function to the appropriate value, which very near 0.95, and voila, the IR camera temperature plummets, matches the thermocouple, and a COP of 1.0 (or very close to that) is the result when the math is done.

    Hello mr. Paradigmoia,

    I'm just tracking how many disinformation you can spread out.

    You have tested it ? Alone ? and using the same logic of this forum who was over viewing you ?

    How have you verified that Alumina you used was pure ? Impure Alumina, like what is found in most alumina cements have a very different emissivity from the pure one.

    Alumina cements have a very high emissivity while pure alumina does not go above 0.7 (0.64) in any case.

    Remember, the Lugano group have measured the emissivity of the alumina pipes and found that this was perfectly compatible with the values found in tables.

    You say you have heated up to glowing .......

    How ? have you used Kanthal wires ? From where you were seeing the glowing ? pure Alumina becomes transparent at high temperature so the glowing should be from the wires if you have seen the glowing from your tube then this would suggest that yours was not pure alumina.

    You say that you got a "COP around 3 to 4"

    Which number please ? 3 or 4 ? and how you have used math ?

    Remember that Energy is a very weak function of emissivity because emissivity appears in the conversion of bolometers signal (proportional to energy) to temperature and back to conversion from temperature to energy.

    So what you refer is unrealistic and surely is due to a math error, for example the one from TC that was using two different emissivity factors one for the camera and one for the Stefan Boltzmann law.

    You say that you have stick a thermoucople on the tube. How ?

    Contact measure of temperature on Alumina is not trivial because Alumina is a thermal insulator and also normal thermocouples would not stand high temperature so you need quite a refined setup to do that not something that everyone can do.

    You say that you adjusted the emissivity on your IR gun, this means that somehow you measured it and if you obtained a value higher then 0.7 then your material was not alumina. Note that at high emissivity the error done by TC is less important so you will ( oh what a miracle !) find a COP just near 1.

    So mr Paradigmoia, for me (and also for any one with some laboratory experience) you are just mythomaniac who want to appears in the net as the hero that is the one and the only capable to make a measure. Not the Lugano team or prof. Parchkomov or any other equals you.

    Speaking of pumps, we can for example estimate the MPF of the author of the calorimetric report of the January 2011 demo (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf). In this report, he wrote that the water flux was "146.4g +/- 0.1 per 30 +/- 0.5 s", ie 17.6 L/h. But the information available on the web show that he knew that the max output of the pump (the yellow one) was only 12 L/h, and, moreover, he couldn't ignore that during the demo this pump was operated at a much lower speed than the maximum.

    What you call MPF has no scientific ground and is your own personal invention just to insult Rossi and Levi as usual.

    What you want to say and try to masquerade behind a pseudo scientific maquillage is that Levi has falsified the report.

    Regarding the pump that is exactly the lay man point of view.

    When testing any apparatus a Scientist must rely on the measures he made first.

    During the test of 2011 the flux was measured by Levi he obtained that figures. In irrelevant which type of label was on the pump or what info is present in the web regarding that label, what was important for Levi was the actual flux that the particular pump present in the experiment was delivering.

    Rossi could had put any label on any instrument or eventually temper that instrument and relying on the label would be equivalent to use an information not coming from the experimental data.

    It was not closed. You can see from the photo of the tank that it was not airtight.

    As usual Mr. Rothwell you demonstrate all your incompetence. The point is not if the circuit was airtight or not, the point is gravity.

    Gravitational field is called conservative because the total mechanical energy of any body is constant.

    That true even for water. In a circuit where you pump water at height H and then recycle the same water to pump it again pressure in the

    input and output should be the same.

    In case of Rossi the condenser was quite higher than the condensation point and this could add an over pressure factor.

    If the water was taken from a reservoir tank than the water level of that tank should be taken into account.

    Interesting to see an appearance from randombit0 attempting to spread FUD about the test.

    Being insulted by you is a nice compliment.

    Surprise: the laws of physics (as applied to mechanics and hydrodynamics) prevail, once again!

    Laws of Physics are always right your interpretation is not. Also you have not to use hydrodynamics in that case. Pressure relations considered here regard hydro statics and gravitation.

    We now have empirical evidence that Rossi's claim of 75 l/h was untrue.

    No sir, this is what you would like but is not true.

    We have numbers taken in one run not done in the correct conditions.

    Also the values obtained are similar to the minimum flux cited in the manual of the pump. So your affirmation regarding running above the maximum is the real FUD.

    Any idea what the inlet overpressure might be?

    The setup is wrong.

    In fact Rossi has used a closed loop so you must know at which height the steam was condensed in order to calculate the input over pressure.

    In a conservative closed circuit input and output pressure are equal.

    You have used an open circuit and that is already wrong.

    Also we have no guarantee that pulse rate and spacing you are using is the same as Rossi and also as very well specified by the Prominent white paper you should the correct accessories for piping.

    Also your result contradicts the manual from Prominent.


    at page 64 you have that 32l/h is the minimum flow at max pressure while 36l/h is the minimum flow at medium back pressure.

    If the stroke rate is controlled by the pump and lImited by that this cannot happen.

    I would be not so sure. This pump is not a mass flow meter pump dosing the exact mass of liquid.

    In this type of economic pumps stroke rate and quantity delivered is not precise and can be influenced by liquid pressure/viscosity/temperature and even by power supply voltage.

    Precise flow pumps are quite different.

    Look e.g.



    Nobody measures power over a voltage, if the resistance is not known...(and do not tell us that the resistence is constant and not complex...)

    Is a different type of experiment. Charge a capacitor with a known energy and discharge it in the device.

    We use it for Plasma Focus devices.

    The measure of Rossi is a higher limit. But correct to demonstrate the effect.

    is I^2R which means that the power can be anything in the reactor depending of the resistance of it.

    A Plasma is conductive. Almost 0 resistance. The power is limited by the internal resistance of the power supply and the resistor in series.

    The power measured in this way is just a higher limit of the power spent in the reactor chamber.

    Correct. The picture proves noting, and Rossi's stated calculations are wrong.

    so what's new?

    The Rossi stated calculations are not wrong.

    And this is not new. They were correct even before.

    Certainly measured wrong.

    This is just your prejudice ! THH This is a repetition of Lugano with a better technology.

    From the paper:


    I'm only a cable guy, used to use volts, amps, ohms and watts in kilo or milli...

    Is that outcame above really correct?

    There is a mistype in the exponent of Stefen Boltzmann constant. Because the unit used is cm^2 it should be 10^-12.

    Is just a mistype the result is correct.

    We have in detail debated these points and you know well that IR spectroscopy requires the use of band emissivity, not total emissivity, whereas output power from temperature requires total emissivity. You come to grief because you conflate the two.

    This was the usual wrong argumentation yo use against Lugano.

    Is totally nonsense.

    Or better to say it make sense only for people that have an agenda and simply want to negate the Lugano results without any real scientific basis.

    What I think that now you are taking out this old and useless discussion just to distract people about more sensitive topics like e.g. the long list of possible criminal actions by Darden and Co.

    I was really (badly) impressed reading Sifferkol and just searching some documents on the net.

    so this confirms that part of the report math is good enough

    Wow you confirming part of the Lugano Report...... incredible :).

    be if the emissivity were 0.95 instead of 0.69 - 0.71 (Main body) and 0.79 (Caps).

    Again the same stuff Paradigmoia !

    Note that of course you forget that the Lugano Professors have confirmed that :

    1) the reactor was made by pure Alumina (read the analysis )

    2) the emissivity of Alumina at this temperature was exactly what present in literature.

    They have measured it comparing to a calibrated reference dot (TiO2 on Kapton)

    Note also that at those temperature the Lugano Report contains calculations showing how the emitted power was in agreement with the input power.

    So all mumbling about "If emissivity was...." is pure nonsense and free speculation.

    We note also from your numbers that even if you varied the emissivity of about 36% your calculated emitted power varies just of about 15% demonstrating also that the emitted power have a very weak dependency on emissivity as one should expect.

    Nothing new. Just same old stuff.

    (the above is essentially a copy of a Disqus post I made 2 years ago since when things have only gotten radically and dramatically worse for Rossi's prospects since his one and only true customer has repudiated Rossi's claims and was prepared to go to court about it)

    We all know you from a much longer time, Your posts are almost always equal.

    BTW as usual and equal in all your contributions you distort the facts. Was Rossi to sue IH and Darden first. Not the reverse.

    Well, it would be fascinating to discuss metaphysics with you, but I think I'd rather do laundry. I would say that this reality of mine is one that I share with somewhere over 7.5 billion people on the planet whereas yours is the home of a few hundred kindred souls who worship at the feet of Il Douche. But tribal loyalty is fierce...

    Insults because you have no arguments.

    BTW I presume that 7.5 billion people do not follow what you say and do not share what you think about Rossi.

    As of course they do not follow me.

    If you think that really so much people think as you probably your case is really serious.

    And of course I was not talking about metaphysics, but psychology .

    Regarding the laundry...... please do it.

    it even produced 1MW power when the reactors were down for maintenance one of those days.

    Another example of rubbish and FUD.

    Rossi answered to all that in his deposition but anyone who has seen even a photograph of the 1MW reactor knows that is modular. It was possible to service some of the modules while the others were working.

    Reporting just the opinion of IH and not the answer of the counterpart is disinformation.

    Uber skeptics are not interested in Rossi. Even vague skeptics wrote him off years ago. What is interesting to skeptics are the people who still think Rossi is something other than a scam artist. Those people are clearly of extraterrestrial origin and everybody is fascinated by aliens.

    Thinking to be the only guardian of the Truth and that everybody who does not have the same opinion is not from Earth is a good starting point for a Psychosis. You create your own reality. But is just yours.

    Rossi has many nonexistent customers & friends who post messages on his blog. Plus he has conversations with himself in his role at the Johnson Matthew subsidiary, as we saw in his deposition. I suppose he sits at a table, asks a question, and then gets up and moves to the other chair before responding. Perhaps he puts on a different hat. It would be interesting to see him argue with himself, or hold a board meeting.

    Well this is exactly what I would call rubbish Eric. No facts Just misinterpretations, FUD and insults.

    Perhaps following and sharing important information about someone who has earned notoriety in the LENR field is entertaining rubbish?

    Sure Eric most of what is written here is rubbish. There is a lot of hate and angry. There are mythomaniacs writing about what they don't know pretending that they know everything. There are people clearly biased by IH and people who simply hate hate hate LENR like Mary.

    The real and valuable information is very difficult to find here.