nuclearNut New Member
  • Member since Jun 16th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by nuclearNut

    Quote: “To say that IH NEVER saw any excess heat from any Rossi device is just ridiculous. If that is true, then they really are completely incompetent. And I don't believe that.”You should believe that. Vaughn is a religious nut. Darden is…


    Dear Mr. Mary, you certainly know your slander. It is worthy of the West Baptist Church Award.
    It is actually quite fascinating how many personal attacks you manage to fit into one post.



    They would test it in whatever range they were told to test it in. And not necessarily the manufacturer, it could be any certified testing agency, maybe Underwriters Laboratories or another company.


    What evidence do you or Jed have of this air in the feed line? Anyone can fantasize what is necessary to make
    Penon must be an incompetent fool if he has not thought of this. And he does not strike me as such.


    And IH would be complete jackasses, if a recalibration be independent company was not part of the agreement. They claim that the Florida test was NOT the "Guaranteed performance", but I find it very difficult to believe that Rossi and his people would spent 350 of their lives operating that plant if they did not believe that they were performing that test.


    For IH to now claim that it was NOT that test, when Penon has handed them 3 quarterly reports and one final report which he was hired to do as part of the "Guaranteed performance test", it seems very obvious that the tactic used here is to deny the validity of the result by denying that the test was the "Guaranteed performance test".


    About the infrared imaging, that proves nothing. It would be based on the assumption that the heat was vented out inside the building, which they cannot know when they haven't entered the "production facilities".


    And again, what the heat was used for is irrelevant for the performance results, but IH wants to use this as another point to denounce the 350 day test. Well, they clearly haven't made this point clear during the test and before getting sued. When it comes time to pay, suddenly everything is a sham.


    To say that IH NEVER saw any excess heat from any Rossi device is just ridiculous. If that is true, then they really are completely incompetent. And I don't believe that.
    But magically THEY managed to improve his process (which now, according the IH, does not work) and apply for patents with his name as the inventor. Give me a break.

    I have read what the post you made and I have answered on the basis of that, I don't have access to the yahoo group.


    As I understand it, your issue is with the flow rate being under the rated range for the meter, hence the meter being rated for higher flow rates and maybe giving a wrong value as a result thereof.


    Again, your answer is in the flow meter calibration data.


    It is not about Rossi, it is Penon's flow meter and his flow meter data that counts. And he is obligated by the agreement to have the flow meters calibrated before and after the test.

    No, this is Penon's job. I'm pretty sure that it was part of the agreement to have the equipment calibrated before and after the test.


    For a test to determine a payout of 89 M$, anything else would be foolish. And IH is no fools, right?


    So those data should be available.

    You are right, I am a little bit confused.


    So if noone hacked the flow meter, any error was added during data crunching after the test or as a result of using a flow meter rated for larger flow rates than actually used. Is that what you are saying?


    We are talking a factor of 50 here...


    I will still think that the answer to the flow rate issue is found in the calibration data, which should be in the ERV report.

    Jed,


    Your issue with the flow meter would be answered in the calibration data for the flow meter, done after the test.


    One would expect that calibration data is available for the flow rates during the test, even if they are under the rated range.

    Mary,


    That was quite a long string of ad hominems.


    No, I don't expect anything will make you change your mind.


    And least of all that you will actually do anything that might put your deeply held scepticism to the test.




    :)

    Rossi propably had his reasons. Maybe he knows that some fight are un-winable and that would be one of them.


    You wrote: " I am pretty sure the Higgs boson is real but last I looked, I did not have very good access to my own Large Hadron Collider device. Only nutty enthusiasts ask dumb questions like those. "


    This is textbook strawman arguments.


    LENR experiments are not really comparable to a Hadron collider. After the 1989 announcement, many of the harshest sceptics of Pons and Fleishmann never set foot in a lab. And they didn't know about or wanted to know about calorimetry, so they could understand how the experiments were done.


    To quote Albert Einstein: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"

    Abd Ul,


    So, you're implying that Rossi hacked the flow meter to give a COP of x 50?


    If that was the case, he must have hacked Penon's flow meter as well.


    I'm sure that the surveilance cameras have picked this up. But as part of the contract, wasn't the flow meters re-calibrated after the test?

    How do they know that? As I understand it, the only equipment mounted was Penon's and Rossi's.


    IH can claim whatever and so can Rossi, for that matter. Penon was the appointed referee, the go-to expert. His measurements said COP > 50.


    I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth.


    How did IH obtain a COP of 1?


    They can claim it, for how did they reach that conclusion?


    So far, it's two against 1, as I see it. Rossi also got COP > 50, according to his earlier statements.

    What IH is not stating directly is that they were sold the equivalent of toilet paper for $10 million, while being told it was a recipe for an amazing technology.



    Probably because that's not the case and they know it.


    This is why you don't do business of this kind in the US, there are too many oil interests at stake.

    Whether there actually was a costumer or not is really irrelevant. What matters is that the plant produced a COP > 6.


    Who cares what the heat was used for? Rossi or JM Chemicals or whoever could have sent it to the birds, it does not matter.

    Mary Yugo,


    I just read the "Excess Heat" book from Charles G. Beaudette, which gives a nice overview of the work done mostly in Palladium experiments and focuses mostly on the excess heat effect. I'd recommend it, even though it's fairly old now.


    He writes a good argumentation on sceptics vs critics and your latest post here demonstrates perfectly his points. Practically to the letter :)
    ------------
    You wrote: " I have never seen anything which is, to me, convincing of excess heat."


    What would, in your view, be a convincing piece of evidence?


    In my view, a simple (Q = m' * Cp (T_out - T_in)) / (Electrical P_in) test setup would be sufficient for me to show convincing evidence of excess heat and especially is Q is 2 times larger or more than P for an extended period of many hours or days.
    -------------
    You wrote: "Why would I do experiments myself?"


    If you don't any experiments yourself, then how can you provide any meaningful critique of the quality on other peoples work on the subject?
    -----------
    You wrote: "What experiments would you suggest and why?"


    How about the experiments you critique? You can clearly provide critique, but it might have even more backbone if you actually tried replicating the experiment yourself. Maybe you would get a similar result, if you really tried. But you probably have better things to do, such as providing meaningful critique on this forum ;)
    -----------
    You are clearly no stranger to ad hominem attacks. May I ask what is your professional background, if you don't mind me asking?

    Mary Yugo,


    May I ask, since you take the position of what can be described as total denial of anything excess heat related to possibly exist, I wonder what is your reasoning for taking this position? I have never read a single supporting statement for LENR/excess heat from you, but you miss no opportunity to be the nay-sayer.


    I figure that you must have some string convictions/arguments as to why. Have you done experiments yourself? Have you found errors in the published papers? What is it? Please tell me, I think it would be very interesting to know.

    Hello Alan,


    The pressure transducer was put in as an afterthought. Maybe it can act as a safety shut-down precaution. It is not relevant for power measurements.


    The secondary side would be kept below 100 C, around 90 C for Q = m * Cp * ( T2 - T1) to remain valid with constant Cp. So I expect only liquid phase in this loop.


    I would like to hear input from any nay-sayers in regards to why this measurement methodology would not be sufficient. I see that Parkhamov's latest experiemnts use this same methodology.

    Hello all,


    I've been wondering why, with all the discussions about doubts on the accuracy/reliability of high temperature measurements (thermal cameras, emissivity and so on), why the old tried and true method of Q = m * (h2-h1) is not being used as the certifiable method that everyone can agree upon to verify excess heat.


    My guess is that it requires more engineering to create a means of transferring heat to a liquid medium and using a thermal camera is an easier way.


    But if it is possible to test a 5-10 kW unit (or smaller) and make a small setup and the test shows a COP > 6... And the instruments have been calibrated...


    What more proof is needed? See the attachment of a suitable setup. Input power measurement is not shown. 2 circuits separated by a heat exchanger large enough to transfer enough energy to condense the steam back to water.
    And in the secondary loop, temperature T2 is kept below 90 C.


    Why is this setup not enough to show that LENR is real? What can go wrong with this setup that would give misleading results? All instruments being OK.

    @magicsound
    It should not be to abandon what you have, it would be for any experimenter who needs a software suite for logging data.


    How many inputs would be required and what type of sensors?


    What would be an acceptable ADC resolution? I am considering 6 K-type inputs with MAX31855 chips for temperature measurements.


    Something like:


    6 x K-type inputs - MAX31855
    10 x Voltage input, for example min. MCP3201-c 12 bit resolution 100k samples


    With
    Etnerhet and RS232


    Upload could be connected to a service like plot.ly or similar service?