Posts by randombit0

@Branzell you forgot the FUSION generator, the pulsed current and the coil that certainly have an impedance.

@Shane D. Nice that you have interest about me, but I can't accept a date.
I don't know the "Lugano Professors" personally and I don't think that they know me.
I presume that they don't read blogs.

Where I have been ? In a laboratory that is extremely interested in new technology.
Is quite a shame that so much junk information populate discussions in the net. Seems that people like, or have interest to, create a parallel ( fake ) reality.
I'm here to try a real scientific discussion. And eventually remove some junk information.

@Andrea S.
Please. I have already explained to you that with only one phase data is really not advisable to try to calculate the power.
Trying to make calculations with insufficient data can lead to use to many assumptions and make tremendous errors.

Then also please DO NOT act as a dis-informer The OL could be easily obtained setting the clamps full scale to 10A. To be nice patient and professional I had also tried to read the "document" you linked.

I do not understand Italian but what I see from the pictures and formulas of the blog you refer is something out of any plausibility! The peak current value they calculate from their assumptions ( i.e. that the clamp has been set to 100A.....), 682A, is so high that would had damaged the power generator. In fact that people has simulated a high current conditions ( from what I see from fig.39) and NOT experimented it in reality.
On my opinion, EVENTUALLY, supposing the clamp set to 10A, a peak value of 68A could be much more reasonable.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Of course it has something to do with the controller.

@paradigmoia
OMG..... IF we have a current of let'say 40-50 A and set the clamps to a 10A full scale we will obtian an OWL ! Note that in fat the same figures are cited as "normal" values of current through the coils,
The OWL we see in the photo is a state of the meter not of the power generator.
The maximum range of the clamps ( round shaped ) we see in the photo is 100A so I would exclude the 160A generator.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

Figure 5 in the Lugano report shows (on the left side of the PC830 display) the waveforms of TWO phases.

You are really Joking !!!! download the report and see the picture is just one ( I3).

and Mr. Clarke PLEASE read the report ad see the pictures as I have done also ! From the photo of the setup one can see that the clamps used were ( most probably ) the 6801 model ( max 100 A) the other clamps have a different shape.
And again please avoid also any fictional hypothesis.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

The above is pure speculation of course.

Avoid any speculation here, or otherwise we can speculate that you have an agenda .

From what I see the rest of your post is a personal attack against Levi.
I have never met him but reading his public curriculum I see he has been awarded by a PhD in Sub nuclear Physics, a Post Doc and a permanent tenure as Assistant Professor in Physics.

And again Mr. Clarke avoid generic and unscientific phrasing. If you have any real argument, not a speculation, not an hypothesis a real scientific and correct argument state it.

@Paradigmoia Are you serious ? You are making inconsistent affirmations !
The OL condition has nothing to do with the FUSION controller ! Can be obtained just changing the clamp range ! The coil material is not mentioned in the report but a good assumption could be something like Inconel or may be Kanthal . See JUST as an example:
http://kanthal.com/en/products…istance-wire/kanthal-apm/

@paradigmoia Come on ! Don't be Paranoid ! If one start to make fictional hypothesis will find plots anywhere !
From the report I see that the PCEs ware two and data ware consistent.

Quote from andrea.s

The problem is that there is enough information to derive it anyway.

No sir NO ! You don't have enough information.
You have completely forgotten that you are looking at only one phase of a three phase AC system.
In the manual of the Compact FUSION controller we read:

Quote

Loads can be controlled in phase-angle, zero-cross, or burst modes for operation of resistive
or transformer connected loads.

So the controller can vary the phase angle of Voltage and Current applied to the load.
If you have no information about the phase angle PHY we can't calculate the power factor Cos (PHY) and so you CAN'T calculate the real power. There is no such information in the report picture which is related to only one phase.
This is a very basic concept in electrical engineering.
People interested can find a primer about that in that Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor

I hope that your forgetfulness was done by error and not by purpose.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Most people present facts in a light favourable to their POV, often leaving out facts.

Yes Mr. Clarke and you and many others seem to do the same. In fact this discussion is full of dis-informative statements and conjectures made by stakeholders or self referring people whose authority come only from themselves.
Want an example among many ?
There is this guy called AndraS.( seems Italian, Spanish or south American ) that affirms
in a pedantic way that the current peaks are compatible with a 3kW power.
How he can do such an affirmation if there is NO vertical scale in the plot ?
He PRESUME that because of the overload the currents must be higher then 200A due to the model (should be the 6801 looking the photos of the actual report ) of the clamps.
used, and he also presume that the authors were so idiot to publish a photo with OWL just by mistake !
But forget to say that the clamps have 3 different settings (1,10,100 A) and another HIPOTHESYS could be that the OWL was not a mistake but an explicit request by IH, Rossi or both to not disclose the actual value of the peak, setting the clamps temporarily to a range lower than the reading.
We must remember that the authors were in strict conditions imposed from both Rossi and IH.
IH eventually has used large parts of the Lugano report to submit a patent application.
The picture on the report had the ONLY purpose to check if all harmonics ware readable by the instrument, not to give current values.
Following the second hypothesis we should conclude that the authors ware quite honest presenting the photo without forging it, and that the measures ware valid but I understand that this is an "absurd by definition" for many.
Forgetting other hypothesis and possibilities is a good technique to SELL ideas and forge opinions.
This means are eventually good for marketing not for science.

Oh, Mr. Clarke excuse me I was just forgot about you:

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Rossi is a guy (historic record) who refuses to measure complex electrical waveforms with true RMS meters and claims average meters are good enough (electrical fact that they vastly under-read spiky waveforms which Rossi used). When Mats points this out Rossi claims he is right and Mats wrong.

What you say refers to a VERY OLD test after which Rossi changed his mind and accepted that all electrical measures should be done with an appropriate instrumentation as the PCE830 is.
Your statesmen has nothing to do on which should discussed in this group, and serve only to present Rossi as the evil, and who trust him as stupid.

So also you are manipulating reality and facts in favor of your point of view.
Now I make you a question. How can we trust people doing that ?

Hello Mr. Clarke,
if you are not a team yo should have won the Guinness World Record for most prolific ( if not compulsive ) poster.
Scanning the Internet is possible to find your posts in a large number of blogs and forums at almost any time during the 24h.
I have seen that you contributed also to a Psychology Blog. http://ownshrink.com/skeptopat…yptodenialism-rossi-ecat/ Interesting reading. Maybe we can understand better the motivations of many people.
Sincerely I don't like your post and don't consider them scientific.
I really feel bad when an author of a supposed to be "scientific" text use generic statements in order to forge opinions of others.
There are lots of examples almost in any of your posts. For example when you refer about "proven" Penon errors without giving a clear reference, or when in a recent post you "collate" vague and generic statements in a arbitrary way.
You also make ( deliberate ? ) confusion among Fabio Penon and Fulvio Fabiani, when you affirm that Fabio was payed by IH. Of course the ERV is payed by both parts, and is also quite obvious that now IH that has enrolled Eng. Fabiani for more than one year now will try to say that in reality was "a man of Rossi".
So really I start considering that no new real information is found in this blog. To many people have an evident economic interest to create and maintain the fog.

A survey here ? about a Scientific topic ?
And also.....
Mr. Clarke you seem to fight against LENR like in a Holy War. Why ? Nothing is more damaging Science than faith in some ideas even if those ideas are considered mainstream.
Can we know your background ? I searched Google Scholar with your name and found only papers about Biology. Is that you ?
R.R.

She is NOT nice because "Mary" is a man. Thats notorious on all the net.