Posts by Jami

Just stumbled over an about to be expired password manager entry (which still works, obviously) while cleaning out an old computer and thought I'd take a look at what half escaped my memory already. I should have expected this but am still amazed that it is still going on in the same endless loop. I bet there won't even be an interruption when Rossi dies. Aren't you guys getting tired of this at some point?

Quote from THHuxleynew

... if me356 says...

That shouldn't be how this works. If me356 really convinced himself, he must have lots of data and documentation about methods and protocols. He's been at this for quite some time, right? Normally you would review all of that and only fly a bunch of people and equipment around the world if you have done that, found nothing wrong with it and have a clear idea of how exactly you'll verify the documented results. If me356 has such data and documentation but chose not to share it for some reasons, then why would he allow anybody to test the device? If he has such data and MFMP reviewed and analysed it, then where is it? And if he doesn't have such data, why would he believe the device works? The whole affair makes no sense either way.

Quote

it would have been too obvious if no heat was produced at all

Too obvious for who or what? It was totally obvious that 1 MW wasn't produced - demonstrated by the fact that the building is still standing and those who visited are still alive. Were 60 kW produced? Occam's razor says no. People who doubt that probably also believe that the magician at their kids birthday really and truly COULD produce mice out of thin air if he really wanted to - but prefers to perform lame tricks with rabbits and hats because mice aren't impressive enough.

Quote

It has been pointed out elsewhere, however, that even with a small 2 or 3 inch pipe, only a few psi of vacuum would be necessary to move 1 MW of steam, and that some industrial heat exchangers operate in just such a manner.

That is why it is pointless to discuss stuff like that with people like you. We're talking about facts here - not opinions. You just lack the ability or willingness to learn them. It is lazy and careless to write trumpanian nonsense starting with "it has been pointed out elsewhere" - as if you couldn't be bothered to pick up a calculator yourself.

Quote

I for one, shake my head when I read "there COULD be ...... " from planet Rossi.

Well he's right. There really could be "a slight vacuum" and if the steam is (or would be) condensed immediately when exiting the pipe, there could even be more than a slight vacuum. But even if it would be a fully blown vacuum like in "space vacuum" it would still amount to a pressure difference of just 100 kPa (which isn't enough - not even slightly).

Quote

I already explained it above. The temperature difference is required for overcoming the pressure drop across 40DIN pipe objected with Penon in Exhibit 5 with water vapor and still remain dry.

There is no such thing as a 40DIN pipe. You probably mean DN40. And of course the temperature difference is irrelevant since it is impossible to squeeze 36,000 kg of steam per day through a 40 mm pipe of any length and with any temperature if all you have is a pressure difference of less than 100 kPa.

Post deleted -contains merely insults and innuendo. Poster banned for 2 days, Alan.

Quote

regardless of the virtue

Carelessness has been Parkhomov's primary virtue so far - along with a disqualifying willingness to doctor his reports, refusal to listen to criticism and an unfortunate inability to interpret even the most obvious data correctly. I can't imagine why he would get, of all things, sampling materials right.

Quote

I just run the experiments and publish the data.

Ok, so if your job is to run the experiment and publish the data and Bob G's s job is to shout "hurray" and Bob H's job is to quote Celani anecdotes from old Rossi (yes, Rossi) demos - then who does all the work to confirm "the absence of contradictory evidence" you claimed a few posts ago? This sounds like your definition of "live open science" is that you guys simply claim stuff and as long as nobody volunteers to prove you wrong, you assume you're right. That should be the other way round. Your approach to noise detection is just plain wrong. The minimum time resolution for that data file is one second (I assume you either couldn't log sub-second interval timestamps or you decided they weren't important and cut them off at the full second to save a few KB of disk space). But whatever the reason - THAT is where you start. Not some arbitrary multiple you pull out of thin air based on whatever made you think 30 seconds was a good idea. In this particular case, you needn't bother with more than 8 seconds (and use matlab or python or fortran for God's sake - doing this in Excel will take forever).

Another thing. Yes, I know you're only running the experiments and publish the data - but can you honestly tell me that you ever looked at the raw data (assuming you did) and took a step back and thought "Yes, that is perfectly ok. I see nothing wrong with this at the time in question. All as it should be."?? Honestly?

Quote

for which we are grateful

Nice words, Alan, but I'd prefer it if you guys learned from this stuff and do this kind of basic analysis before you call "the end of the carbon age" next time. I already ran a basic PCA for Matthieu (because he too couldn't be bothered to do it himself BEFORE he claimed success) to prove that his infallible flow meter reported nonsense and that Celani's congratulations were unfounded - with the result that the next experiment was again designed without any sanity check on data at all. You do this yourself now. Four or five lines of matlab coding won't kill you. You know what you'll find.

Quote

Noise in one does not correlate with noise in the other.

It does. You may not be able to explain why but it remains fact that your TC data went berserk around the time of "the signal". It is strange that you would dismiss an obvious correlation like this one but - only a few posts above - seriously consider an outrageously far fetched one using the words "It could well be that radiation and excess heat are not seen at the same time." That is a prime example of confirmation bias.

This is unprocessed data from either hugnet or google (I don't remember - it's been a while since February) plotted 1:1 in Excel. Zoom in to original size to see the time span (and the magnitude of the issue). I remember that it all looked totally innocent and not a bit discontinuous in hugnet's visualizer. Even with this dataset, the discontinuity completely disappears as soon as you apply a running average over as few as 10 data points.

Quote

The ambient temperature variation Jami plotted is typical of the environment in my "lab"

It isn't. In fact the plotted period is totally atypical of the environment in your "lab". The rest of the data looks very similar to the first three hours of the plot.

Quote

No plausible mechanism for a measurement error or artifact has been found, though it's still possible.

Given the circumstances, a measurement error or artefact is absolutely plausible. I posted a hires plot of the ambient temperature measurements during the occurrence of "the signal" at the time on ecatnews. Here it is again: https://postimg.org/image/nza0n6nub/full/

I wouldn't trust any measurement done during those hours with any instrument in that room. Looks like static discharge against a ground leak to me. The other TCs seemed to be similarly confused.

Quote

Question is; can a little guy like me356 make money if he successfully overcomes the reliability and upscaling issues none, so far, have overcome?

Question is - would a little guy like me365 hide the discovery of the millennium because he can't overcome reliability and upscaling issues? Maybe he doesn't want to see his face on the Time cover because he's a solitary soul. And he couldn't travel to Oslo to receive his Nobel because he doesn't like to fly so he thinks "screw it". Maybe he's rich and famous beyond our wildest dreams already. Maybe he spends his time on his own island anyway, enjoying peace and quiet unbothered by the needs and worries of the world around him - only interrupted by occasional visits of an out of work graphic designer who wants to better our lives but can't be given me356's secret process because he'd screw it up and poison himself with radiation known to kill everybody who dares mixing H and Ni without his instructions which he doesn't give anybody because, well, they're dangerous...

He IS pulling a Rossi, believe me. Mind you, he only gets paid in attention on a fringe website rather than Miami real estate - but still.

Quote

...to suggest there is no evidence at all, is an odd position to take...

Depends on what constitutes "evidence". A blurry photo of something unidentifiable flying in the night sky is "evidence" for the existence of UFOs by some definition or other and I guess some would even go so far as to say that the existence of alien life on earth has been "demonstrated" by such photos. LENR is two steps below that - even if you take into account that alien life is almost infinitely more likely to exist than LENR (which is why we have something on the scale of SETI on one hand and something like MFMP on the other).

Quote

LENR is impossible, therefore any demonstration of a low level effect is artifact and error, and any demonstration of a large effect is fraud. Q.E.D.

How would you know? A "demonstration" is defined as "an act of showing that something exists or is true by giving proof or evidence." (not a native speaker, so I looked it up to be sure). By that definition, no "demonstration" of any form of LENR has ever happened. So your accusation is wrong.

Quote

... If IH has proof the customer was faked ... slam dunk "case dismissed"

Nowhere in Rossi's complaint is the "customer" mentioned as an entity which has to be independent or otherwise. So how would proof that it isn't an independent entity make dismissal of Rossi's claims a slam dunk?

Quote

...discussion on the web is pointless, since as you have just seen in another thread, it not a place for agreement or clear discussions, but a place that enables perpetual disagreement...

Hang on - we're not talking about Cornell refusing to discuss his latest paper from Science or Nature on an obscure nutcase blog. We're talking about a paper that was chosen to be published on an obscure nutcase blog in the first place. There is no conceivable reason for a high horse here.

Quote

...appeals to authority...

I thought you'd know by now that you wouldn't recognise authority if it bit you in the... ah never mind. Just had a deja vu ... of sorts.