Posts by Argon

@Thomas Clarke explanation accepted. I had missed your withdrawal - eventhough would have been interested would you be willing to state that what Jed or mr Wever is writing about boiling Rossi is total nonsense.

Quote from Slad

Saving this one for posterity:

Quote from Dewey Weaver: “Slad - Yep - the insulation and plywood for each reactor box are included in the simulation. You should see what happens when the plywood catches fire. Don't fret - it's a pro model - these…

@Slad Thanks for good analysis and this thread again proves weavey is repeating same old pattern here. When relevant questions are discussed, amount of his nonsense FUD increases. Fact is that last weekend Jed was hammering Thomas Cluck with gas stove FUD and when heat management questioned, @Thomas Clarke remains totally absent from this exact discussion, since he would not want to put his name on such nonsense claims, and weavey starts FUD sling to cover up (from random readers) what was actual topic.
So patethic, weavey so patethic, you already lost all your credibility here and you have not yet figured out that, because of all this, as soon as actual litigation session starts IH will discard you as old glove that has been used to pick dog poop in park...

For journalists and Jury checking backgrounds: Read my Lips: This thread proves that Rossi would have not fried in any of the 2 containers, Pipe diameters are plausible to transfer MW heat, containers + Endothermic process like sponge processing would be possible in given facilities. 3kW HVAC was cooling the container, not heating it, since condenser unit was naturally outside of container. This thread also proves mr @Dewey Weaver spreading total nonsense all over the places.

Since e-catworld moderation seems to be on leave, i paste this here. Not much new information, but shows how this dispute is seen by media atm.

http://citywire.co.uk/money/wo…it-by-fraud-claim/a911347

Allright, the actual question is where is @Thomas Clarkes analysis now...

Quote from ilia

I have been thinking about this comment made by me356
Quote: “On the other hand, one who know how this thing is working, can start it with a hammer. ”
If he was serious wouldn't it be more cost effective to try low frequency stimulus rather than the…

That caught my eyes also in original post, but in addition to your shock wave theory I could guess hitting hammer on some hard surface (steel, aluminium, rock) could generate also ultrasound. Actually quite high power one, I remember by just properly hitting bigger rock with normal hammer lead my ears ringing (distance >100cm) for quite some time.

@Thomas Clarke I would really appreciate your stand on this 'Rossi boiling in his container' -issue.
I'm not interested on computer container but container having 4x250kW ecats inside providing process heat through the wall by means of supply and return (60 C) pipes. You can give your assessment supposing pressurized 160C water or 100.1C wet or hotter dry steam or anything between.
I'm not interesting (wet steam) calorimetry error part but how hot in your mind container would run?

Since @JedRothwell seems to express some claims in vortex during weekend (about Rossi would be frying inside 1MW container etc.) , I would like to invite effort making example calculations. That simulation we can do also without ERV report. The main error he has is that he thinks 1MW is consumed inside container and in practice forgets pipes passing process heat out from container. Other very questionable claim is insulation capability on thermal insulators. Additionally he is referring to heat transfer efficiency and thinks that 70% efficiency would mean 30% heat into container, but if heat is transferred inside e-cat then it would affect only needed heat transfer surface dimensions, and no extra heat is lost into air because of poorer efficiency.

So instead of so rough guesswork, could someone with more hands on experience do sample calculations of the following assumptins (preferably first fix assumptions to more realistic):

1) Outgoing process heat 120C (pressurized water, no steam).
2) Returning process heat 90C? (water)
3) Pipe diameter 120mm?
4) Waste heat through thermal isolation 20kw? Yes I could guess this would be absolute max, so no Rossi frying.
5) Heat transferred to process 1MW as process heat. Consumed before water returns to container.
6) Heat transfer surface (metal/water interface) would be max 1m2/e-cat*4e-cats => 4m2 ?

Open questions to be calculated:
7) What would be needed flow rate with these assumptions?
8\) Needed practical min. pipe diameter from container?
9) What would be needed temp difference between heat source and water with this flow rate to enable transferring this heating power?

For simplicity in this example we are concentrating only on container part and thus just assume that customer process is endothermic meaning transferred energy is mostly used for some kind of phase change of process product. An remaining heat is lead out through roof vents and conducted through walls.

Anyone up to task?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1651-Argon/">@Argon</a>
The thermocouple primarily only needs to be attached long enough to get a good calibration. MFMP has easily managed this.
For extra assurance, it would be good to have a thermocouple attached all the time, if this is possible.
Note that the MFMP…

Yes actually I agree, as long as thermocouple is at least steadily 'hanging' around same distance of the body, error margin is limited and pretty constant (at least was in MFMP videos). From MFMP videos I also first time learned that Optris is pretty reliable (in its error margins) as long as emissivity setting is correct and heat radiation profile is somehow 'typical'. I don't know the topic enough, but seems that this 'typical' is what @Thomas Clarke @randombit0 was arguing. Alumina seems to have special optical properties making IR measurement less trivial.

From that I got an idea that (mainly for MFMP and other replicators), should someone try to separate thermocouple further from too hot body by purpose. For example attach wide and thick enough (half?)ring of clay or something around body and inject thermocouple there half way. Temperature reading of the thermocouple would be lower, but would protect it better. I think reading then follows some pretty accurate heat transfer/heat dissipation formula and thus can be calibrated and compensated (at least) in post test calculations. That way replicators could have control readings to verify Optris readings. Clay was just one example, as long as material have some thermal resistance and can stand the heat.

But in topic of this thread I have additional question. Why Lugano report is still in so big importance as Swedes re-involvment and many comments here indicates? If dispute is about Rossi getting IH contract and $11,5m by falsified Lugano tests, then contract would be declared invalid, and in court IH would get rid of 89m payment and even ask refund of 11,5m? Now Mr Weaver has indicated here that they want 'Rossi to transfer the knowledge and keep IH license valid'. Why to concentrate on Lugano and discredit Mr Rossi in that case?

My answer is still that it is about Rossi interpreting contract covering only E-cat and Hot-Cat technologies, which both seems to be worthless because of bit earlier Celani(?) patent. Rossi might have Quark-X which could have some unique IP and also (business wise) superior technology over older models. Rossi wants to get rid of too cheap contract and lost trust in their business relationship after Bril.. and Asian partners involvement by IH.

This obsessive Lugano interest might be just preparing one tool for court case to discredit Mr Rossi, but in my understanding using that in court would not lead to desired successfull IP transfer to IH but invalidation of the whole contract instead. And that is what Mr Rossi is targeting anyway, so this saga snake is now eating its tail - literally.

So @Dewey Weaver is the only viable conclusion of all this that IH doesn't believe Rossi is having any working E-cat technology or Quark-X in his sleeves and IH is just preparing for invalidation of the contract and demanding for 11m refund instead? If so, you must be pretty sure, since in business risk calculations has always 'benefit' factor, and in this case it is huge at the minimum...

Sorry @Thomas Clarke I was not planning to ignore your reply earlier in thread, but do not have enough time to go through all claims @randombit0 wrote yesterday in science behind dispute -thread.
I personally have newer even held IR camera in my hand (except once early 80's), so I won't start analyzing her claims. Easier just to withdraw and apologize you if I misread your exchange with her. Following your dicussion with great interest still.

Related to that, I hope you check MFMP glowstick 5.2 videos and clearly see why Lugano thermocouple data, Mr Weaver is feeding you, cannot be used in calculations. If you want to save time, ask Bob Greenyer or read his analysis from this e-catworld glowstick 5.2 thread

or additionally even study this thread before accept Mr Weavers offer. Your call, just wanted to make you aware...

Quote from andrea.s

<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1578-randombit0/">@randombit0</a>

Why thermocouples weren't used is explained in a deeply unsatisfactory way: was the reading too low and attributed to the poor contact?

there is no need to derive emissivity from books if one calibrates, which was not done in the Lugano test in the high temperatures range.
Calibration can be done with stickers at lower temperatures, and with thermocouples at hotter…

I hope swedes have watched MFMP Dog Bone 5.2 videos. Reason, why thermocouples weren't used, can be learned (and was replicated) from there. thermocouple readings were not reliable in higher temperatures, since connection to body started give up. Bob Greenyer can enlighten more if needed.

Quote from magicsound

@Tom Paulson Your FFT graph of a simulated SCR spectrum is nice to look at, but rather deceptive. The log scale obscures the reality that the harmonic at 1 MHz is ~110 dB (3 X 10^-6) below the fundamental. I'm not saying that a chopped waveform doesn't…

@magicsound You pointed important thing I have been thinking also. If stimulus is to be caused by high frequency and with some amount of energy, much better way is to tune own, coil and wiring, just for that. For other readers this can be explained in other words ' rise time (dV/dt) of square wave indicates how quickly amplitude of higher harmonics gets filtered down.' And that rise time depends on inductance of the coil.

What would save lots of time from replicators, if someone have found out from Celani:s patent is it the static magnetic field (with DC component), high frequency magnetic field, ultrasound, spark (or hammer as me356 said) or what that is needed. Or maybe me356 could throw that bone to replicators?

Quote from sifferkoll

Quote from Argon: “Quote from sifferkoll: “&amp;quot;Fake&amp;quot; customer is a new epithete. Really really strange as you stated that you did not even start to worry about the test until late autumn in earlier posts !!!!! If the ERV report sais COP 50…

@sifferkoll Yes after reading you blog, i have to re consider what I said.
'- Dewey have not been in IH:s real inner wheel at that time. He wasn't even aware of problems with ERV until around time when Rossi sent their case to court..'
OK it was not just Mr Weaver, but also IH who got taken by surprise when Mr Rossi wanted the trial instead of settling dispute with IH. That stil lfits the schedule I had in mind. This actually makes things more exiting and as you said points to direction that it is not about COP>0 but what they got from Rossi, and validity of whole license if Celanis patent practically invalidates it.
Maybe Quark-X gets around Celanis IP, but Rossi considers that to be outside IH-license, thats why they need this campaign.
Luckily we don't need to wait long, ERV report must come into binder pretty soon, hopefully then we know more.

Quote from Alan Smith

Bring on the monkeys indeed. So we go from Infrasonic up to the Terahertz band. That will take a while - and a truckload of equipment. Send it round when you have time.

You don't necessarily need truckload of equipment. What Axil means is that when you feed in square wave or otherwise 'spikey' waveform they consists of multiple frequencies (of sine waves). Please see again fully video axil posted me356: Reactor parameters [part 2] or google wikipedia on 'square wave'. I think that is the reason why me356 could confirm that both Triacs and MOSFETS are fine in controller. So in short if you pass 'spikey' waveform it consists of many high frequencies.
MOSFETS can be driven to make pulsed output either from 50/60Hz sine wave input or wide range of frequency if input is first rectified (and filtered by capacitor) to DC and then pulsed by FETs.
Whereas Triacs are typically used to pass through only parts of input sine wave. So base frequency remains same as input, but output is more 'spikey' because of fast partial cut of wave.
If I would have time and skills on LENR matter I would try with MOSFETS and DC, driven by PWM output of $15 Arduino Nano boards. Programming is easy even elementary school kids routinely do this. See for example: https://www.arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/SecretsOfArduinoPWM . needed SW would take around 30 to 100 lines of code depending do you want simple fixed base frequency pwm or adjustable one. Then it would be matter of running through the pwm (ratio) range in loop with spleep() included.
I would use DC because then it would make possible to test also what me356: Reactor parameters [part 2] and others have proposed.
Googling topics like 'inverter' or 'switching power supply' would give you hints what kind of external circuit is needed to achieve enough power on output (arduino gives only TTL levels).

Quote from sifferkoll

"Fake" customer is a new epithete. Really really strange as you stated that you did not even start to worry about the test until late autumn in earlier posts !!!!! If the ERV report sais COP 50 then of course there is a legitimate legal dispute. Even you should get that.

@sifferkoll Even I'm not interested on reading you two fighting all over the places, I can hint you that all this makes more sense if you consider the following (lets call it still scenario at this point):
- Dewey has agenda to help IH indirectly to put up more fog over Rossis claims for court case.
- Dewey does not have any big guns backing him up. He is just lonely VC who took calculated risk and is now in road to recover. He is here mainly to minimize his losses but has some level of relation to Mr Darder though.
- Dewey have not been in IH:s real inner wheel at that time. He wasn't even aware of problems with ERV until around time when Rossi sent their case to court..

So for me he is here just to play for IH:s position and marketing his sympathies to LENR and environmental issues for preparing his future adventures.
Read back all his posts here and Matts blog and notice that he has not practically answered none of the direct questions asked from him, but instead promoting his message. That's why he is not worth chasing in my opinion.

I see even more important that @randombit0 caught @Thomas Clarke pants around his knees on Lugano report thermal analysis in other threaad. He is continuing putting up his counterclaims, but I noticed already that he stopped publicly admitting and underlining when he gets caught. That is something what he promised in before, but did it only in one posting as far as I can count. Why I see this more important is that he made so strong and theoretically grounded claims against Rossi, that it is very important to put things straight. That is what we try to do in this forum also?