Posts by IH Fanboy

Quote from Thomas Clarke

IHFB wrote:

Seems like a simple enough test. I'm paraphrasing things based on memory
of Jed's comments from years back, but I do remember that Jed was *very
adamant* that the water would remain boiling in the pot far less time
than what was demonstrated during the Oct. 6, 2011 test.

Thomas Clarke wrote:

Jed got that wrong at the time. He has been learning a lot of
calorimetry, and perhaps more general caution, as he studies LENR
experiments, and I believe would now be quite a bit more careful than he
was then. You can read what he said and subsequent analysis (mainly by
Ascoli68) on the other thread and judge for yourself.

Display More

So you are certain that water in the pot would continue to boil for 3 hours after the stove was turned off?

Even if you are correct, which would be quite a surprising result to me (although admittedly I am not an expert in calorimetry), then you are still stuck with some pretty hard-to-explain temperature data in the Oct. 6, 2011 test. You have proposed the loose-coupling hypothesis in an attempt to explain the data, but I have shown it to be unlikely. Also, not sure how it explains the temperature response when the hydrogen was let out of the cell.

Quote from Eric Walker

If the "hot core" analysis is valid, it implies similar behavior would have been seen in control runs (absent intentional fiddling with the setup between active and control runs). You would look at the power-in v. temperature response data for a control run, conducted without fuel, and think, "there's SSM." Were there any control runs for the Oct. 6, 2011, Bologna test? I haven't found any.

I'm not aware of any either, which is quite surprising given the attention the Oct. 6, 2011 test has been given. I remember Jed suggesting a test along the lines of heating up an iron pot (that has similar mass as to the components capable of storing heat energy within the fat cat). For example, put the pot on a hot stove, and raise the temperature to the maximum temperature of the Oct. 6, 2011 test, then turn off the stove, and time how long it takes for the water to stop boiling. Seems like a simple enough test. I'm paraphrasing things based on memory of Jed's comments from years back, but I do remember that Jed was *very adamant* that the water would remain boiling in the pot far less time than what was demonstrated during the Oct. 6, 2011 test.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

We'd have to go to the thread analysing this experiment and look at the only arguments requiring specific thermal coupling which were not Jed's and quite mind-bogglingly complex. Really you don't want to do that! It is angels dancing on pins. The simple analysis shows that, for the most obvious heater design, the observed SSM is exactly explained by a hot core model.

Based on my review of the threads (and I agree, they are quite complex and difficult to grok each position), your standard "hot core" model does not explain the exponential temperature drops observed in response to certain actions taken (which were various and occurred at different times). So, in order to fill that gap, you proposed the specific loose thermal coupling hypothesis to explain the temperature data. And so the SSM is not explained simply by the hot core model. It requires your hot core model + loose coupling hypothesis.

I am suggesting that everything Rossi has done to date, to our knowledge, has had a tight coupling. You are welcome to believe that he transitioned from loose coupling to tight coupling, but building a core with a heater element loosely coupled to it makes little sense, unless Rossi was intentionally trying to deceive. And as I've stated before, it is impossible to disprove trickery. Thus, my suggestion that the only finality we will get in this saga is when working products are available widely, such that many independent "testers" can test and report.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

IHFB is talking about patents but as far as I know none describe...

All of Rossi's patent applications show a tight coupling between heating element and core. I'm suggesting that it is highly unlikely that he made a loose coupling version just to throw everybody off on the temperature data. It violates Occam's razor.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

All Rossi's devices have a heater. In this case, to explain what was observed, the heating element needs to heat both a "hot core" with a large thermal mass and the primary water circuit. In order to explain accurately the rise and decay times of temperature in different parts of the experiment you need the heater not to be connected so tightly to either the primary circuit or the core that they have identical temperature. That "not identical temperature" is loose coupling. It always happens, and the exact thermal design is always unknown unless you cut the whole thing open.

There was a wafer at the bottom of the unit. You can see it when it is opened up.

https://www.google.com/patents/US9115913?dq=9115913&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK45OQioLNAhVW8mMKHSU2DyIQ6AEIHDAA

Look at FIG. 3 of the patent. You will see how the wafer is likely constructed. And you will see how tight the coupling between the heater and the heating elements is.

Your "loose coupling" conjecture arises as an unlikely explanation for the temperature behavior.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Sifferkoll - where do you get this stuff from? I can only interpret this as a sign of effectiveness but not on your part. You're welcome to continue your slander and libel campaign - it is very helpful for upcoming remedies.

We have an interesting…

While I don't agree with all of Sifferkoll' tactics, and I'm not convinced that Zoepfl is in IH's court based on those quotes, I don't see how speculating on a Zoepfl / IH / Apco connection could be libelous in any way, much less slanderous. Doth protest too much, methinks.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Jed's problem was a lack of imagination (or possibly a lack of physical intuition). Either he did not consider the possibility of a high temperature metal core holding heat - or he did not realise that could account for the "self-sustained mode" heat. The experiment was superficially impressive because so much heat was shown after the supply was (basically) switched off. But, you must remember the long heating period before hand, and have the imagination to realise that a hot metal core could be pushed up to quite a high temperature by the heater during that period.

He did realize this and he refuted it.

Quote from sifferkoll

Quote: “thank you Siffer!”

Be my guest! Well, as far as I understand Angry Freddie is more of a Washinton lobbyist for the Biofuel industry collecting tax dollars for the AGW agenda or something. This astroturfing I guess gives him som extra cash. …

I must say, he makes even Krivit and Wright seem like saints. After reading such vitriol, I think I really could use a shower. What is it about this topic that seems to really draw the worst out of people, particularly from the "nuclear physicist" types? If they are confident in their position, they would remain more civil. The flippant attitudes demonstrate a level of worry I haven't sensed from those quarters in a while. Is this whole story coming to a head?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Take a step back and try to communicate.

Perhaps you should. Maybe you could start with explaining what you mean by "a heating element loosely coupled to both the hot core and the primary system." What would it look like? What mass would it have? How large would it be? What would it be made of? Where specifically would it be connected, and by what means? Do you think it was purposely "loosely coupled" by Rossi because Rossi was keen enough to have the forethought to anticipate your attack on the test, and did the loose coupling to throw you off? That is one smart cookie, that Rossi.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I don't think you've read Jed's critique.

And what makes you draw that conclusion?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

But, in any case, all I meant was one that is thermally coupled to both core and primary circuit which, if you think about it, is bound to be the case. Hoe good is the coupling is not clear from a casual inspection.
Are you saying there was no heating element because no-one saw it?

Do you suggest it was hidden somewhere? Yes, trickery is always a possibility. It is nigh impossible to disprove it.

Quote from Ascoli65

Quote from IH Fanboy: “Quote from Ascoli65: “was able to keep the water at the boiling point for more than 3 hears, after the switching off of the electric heater.”

This is false. Look back at Jed's careful falsification of this proposition. It…

I happen to find Jed's explanation more persuasive. Thomas suggests a "heating element loosely coupled to both the hot core and the primary system." The simple problem with this hypothesis is that, to my knowledge, nobody saw or reported such a "loosely coupled" heating element. And the unit was opened for inspection for all witnesses to see.

Quote from Tarun

e-catworld.com/2016/05/29/indu…-e-cat-patent-may-5-2016/

Industrial heat amends Ecat patent may-5-2016.

I wonder why they can't let go of it.

It appears that IH amended and cleaned up the claims. That they continue with the application is one of the first indications that we have that IH still sees value in the eCat technology. That is probably why Frank is highlighting this on his blog. Can you think of any other reason why they would take the effort to put the claims into better form and continue with the application?

Abd: I'm willing to put your little rudeness behind us. It is a well-known figure of speech, and I feel you twisted it into an insult, but, C'est la vie, let's move on. I actually enjoy reading your thoughts and analysis. A bit wordy at times, and I disagree with much of it, but you clearly have thought things through and have an ability to articulate your position well.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

That is, how "IH Fanboy" looks, and that is not a real human being whose reputation could readily be injured. "Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax" is. And so are some others here, such as Dewey Weaver and Jed Rothwell. Sifferkoll is a blogger who is apparently anonymous, but at least he has a blog with an established readership at risk. Rossi is, of course, a real person. Many others commonly mentioned here are real. I think Thomas Clarke is a real name. There is a difference between people who write, putting their personal reputation on the line, and those who can just shoot of their mouth with no personal consequences, they can always just disappear, or so they think.

Just so you know, there is a real person behind IH Fanboy, going through life's journey just as you and others on this forum, subject to the same frailties as you and all other humans. Do I respect those who have dropped the pseudonyms and thrown their hat in the ring in a public way? Yes, I do in fact. Being associated with LENR in any way carries with it great reputational risks, and so that kind of move deserves my respect. That goes for you, Dewey, Darden, Jed, Rossi, Matts, Pons, Fleischman, Hagelstein, Storms--just to name a few, any and all who have made that move into the open. Careers have been risked and in some cases dampened. Reputations have been put on the line.

That said, those of us who remain under pseudonym can contribute in meaningful ways. If our analysis is cutting and insightful, it shouldn't be relegated to second-class just because we choose to remain private at this time. Will I ever come out from underneath my pseudonym? I suspect yes, some day I will. But it doesn't suit my circumstances well to do so at this time. Rest assured that I interact in the real world with players in the LENR space. I do have a presence in all of this. I'm generally self-made, and run my own ship, and would not be caught too harshly in the reputation trap--but the risk however slight is there, and I haven't yet summoned my personal will to make that step. I trust that you can respect me and others, refraining from insults, even if we choose to remain private.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

At the risk of being a bit rude,…

Well, it was rude, and not appreciated. It is quite simple to level insults. What isn't simple, however, is to marshal the many facts surrounding this affair, and to provide incisive analysis--so much so that it spurs thinkers on this forum to write page-long replies.

Quote from Ascoli65

was able to keep the water at the boiling point for more than 3 hears, after the switching off of the electric heater.

This is false. Look back at Jed's careful falsification of this proposition. It has zero basis.

Quote from stephenrenzz

yet all we hear is that of yet ANOTHER secret customer.

There are, apparently, multiple interested parties in purchasing the eCat. Put your feelers out--the information is floating about, albeit admittedly unconfirmed. The eCat is a more mature product, relatively speaking. The QuarkX is still in the very early stages of development. Now, to your question of who would purchase the eCat? Nobody openly. Why? Because of the likes of you and others who would crucify their reputation in public if given the chance. The reputation trap not only applies to those of a scientific pursuit. People and companies are very sensitive to that sort of thing. So, we get secrecy, at least for the foreseeable future.

Quote from Ascoli65

But looking carefully at the data, it can only convince that the Ecat is unable to produce any excess heat.

It is, of course, a function of how long you run the test, if you use total energy in versus total energy out (i.e., power integrated over time).

Now, if you consider the fact that the unit ran in SSM mode for hours, in view of many witnesses of renowned character, then this contradicts your conclusion. After opening up and showing the internals of the unit, it doesn't surprise me that it drew a sustained applause from those in attendance. One of the proudest moments of Rossi's life, as he later explained his thoughts about the demonstration.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

I think you'd need to explain this. The long-term test, as implemented by Rossi, appears to have no relevance to e-cat commercialisation.

It would have been useful. Before commercializing a product, you need some burn-in. You need to refine the safe operating parameters. You need to assess its overall durability and reliability. And now, the 1MW plants are apparently available for purchase in non-IH territories, to the suitable industrial-type players, who have the gumption and wherewithal to place the order. I would suggest that the year long test was quite useful to a commercialization effort.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

me: you don't need a perfect string player, just one who is reasonably good. Fred Bloggs is hitting one wrong note every three notes they play!

me: your reasonably good string player is in my subjective opinion not good enough. He has flaws. He might be faking his talent, you never know. Maybe he practiced one or two tunes so well that he skirted by the cuts, but overall, he is flawed, or tricky, or fraudulent. Best to have your alleged "reasonably good" player replaced with a symphony performing in various halls around the globe. Let the people taste for themselves and report their findings independent of all other subjective opinions.

Quote from Shane D.

About that 6 Oct 2011 test...his best to date. He used a single Ecat for the demo, but guess how many Ecats were in the housing? LOLs...3, but he told the invited guests that the other 2 were backups, and not used as they were not needed. I think his COP was 3 also.

It was in SSM for hours. Doesn't matter if there was 1 or 3 active during the SSM period. Of course, there is always the possibility of trickery.