It's prediction time since the Qx test is approaching. My prediction for this test is they won't do a public calibration run. What this means is I doubt they will run the test normally but with an unfueled reactor to gain the inactive COP of the system in public. I guess they will just run it with the fueled reactor as always under the assumption that inactive COP =1. In normal science, real COP ~ COPactive/COPinactive with some adjustments. In LENR, real COP = COPactive/1 = COPactive since in LENR we are supposed to always assume the system COPinactive =1 without any verification. This is why so many LENR excess energy claims have been debunked. The LENR scientists would claim they had COPinactive=1 when in reality COPinactive >=COPactive when measured by experts.
- Member since Aug 20th 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by lenrisnotreal
-
-
The main problem with all these Ecat results is they rarely show what the results were during calibration, non-active runs. There have been at least three examples I can think of where the "excess heat" claimed during an LENR active run was the same when expert scientists came in and performed an inactive fuel free run. For example, IH might have initially claimed a positive COP when they ran the Ecat using the Ecat people's setup. Then, the expert scientists they brought in showed that roughly the same "excess heat" was measured whether or not fuel was present. Hence, A COP of 1.
-
There are a lot of arguments on this either way. One item no one has been able to explain is why the ecat only works when the e-cat people are operating it. The extension to that is why the ecat people almost never allow an independent test of it without their involvement. My opinion on the reason for that is clear. But it does make for an interesting thought experiment.
-
Rossi hasn't said that the reactor has zero ohms of resistance. He has said that one can assume it is zero, and if one doesn't assume it is zero, it makes for a more conservative determination of input power, and he is right.
We would like to see the schematics, drawings, and numbers and make that determination ourselves.
-
I don't agree with you. Rossi obtained his IP. This was his main goal. He has not to restitute the first payment he received. It's clear this settlement was an amazing victory, giving the fact that the IP value is far bigger than the money IH had to pay to Rossi... Rossi is the only who guiñes something. About legal fees... How much could be? 1M, 3M, 5M? They are nothing compared to the risk of losing IP...
IH and their team of top scientists had exclusive access to all of the Ecat IP for years. They also had assistance from the Ecat people. They were never able to make the Ecat work independently as claimed. The "believers" and "followers" completely gloss over the fact that Ecat technology has never worked independently of direct involvement of the Ecat people. And, in my opinion, it never will.
-
It doesn't absorb power, it emits it (according to Rossi).
What I'm saying is the 1ohm resistor has nothing to do with the Ecat's input power. It is being used as a meter. We need to know the ecat's actual resistance to know the input power.
-
Ok, I think I've figured out the error that gives the high claimed COP of the quarkx. They claim 0.1V over a 1ohm resistor. This means there is 0.1 amp flowing through the rest of the circuit regardless of the unknown resistance in the rest of the circuit. If the ecat has a resistance of 0ohm (unlikely) it has 0 power through it. If it has resistance of 1000ohm, it has 1000 times more power going through it than they claim by Power=current *current*R. By stating the current through the ecat, not stating the resistance of the ecat which is trivial to measure, and implying the ecat has near 0 resistance, might be misleading. The ecat has to have a resistance or there is no way for it to absorb power. They are measuring the power over an un-involved resistor and claiming that is the input power which does not make sense. Their measurement technique for input power does not seem valid whether the actual power is higher or lower.
-
Another item is that I can't figure out is that people keep saying the Ecat people won this case because of the settlement. The Ecat people lost this case badly. They sued for about $270 million and did not receive any money. Keep in mind they received the $10.5 million years ago. After paying expenses, wages, "R&D", etc those years, they must have spent some of that. Then add in the legal fees for this case which they had to pay out of pocket, and the amount of funds remaining dwindles even more. Just because the Ecat people say the case was about the IP (which the defendant might not have wanted anymore anyway) after the settlement does not change the fact that they received $0 out of the $270 million they sued for. This is a horrifically bad result for a civil case.
-
Water and alcohol are both polar so they mix evenly. A solution of just over 50% water and the rest a clear alcohol with a specfic heat of about 2.5 KJ / (K*Kg) gives a COP of about 1.2. Since most observers at demos do nothing but clap at the end, if the system were completely closed they wouldn't know it was not pure water. There are other clear polar liquids that could also spike the water. Not to imply anyone has done this, but it's something that needs to be ruled out for these lower COP claims.
-
Display More
Rossi has described what he plans to show when he unveils the Quark X (now the E-Cat QX):
"It will be plain and simple calorimetry. We will have a flow of water that will not change phase, well below 100 Celsius degrees, a measurement of the water flowing through the plant and a measurement of the delta T and of the electric energy consumed by the E-Cat QX. Plain and simple."
Because this will not be an independent 3rd party test (can there ever be such a thing?) what measurements would the people here like to see?
Is there a place were a sample of water can be sent to verify its specific heat?
What redundant measurements can be made?
Yes I agree with you completely. Especially in light of how Defkalion once said something about using a liquid besides water in their device. Here is a link to common liquids' specific heat. Most of them have specific heat below water, meaning they would show a higher delta T than water for the same heat added.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ic-heat-fluids-d_151.html
I might add that you could also "spike" the water and not completely replace it. It could look and flow like real water. But it would have enough of a lower specific heat liquid added so that it would show one of these unverified minimal COPs of 1.25 to 1.3 that people often use to say that CF/LENR might be real.
-
Display More
Hi Lenrisnotreal,
It sort of goes like this:
- IH supporter: "Woodford didn't make the investment because of Rossi. It was because of the other LENR players in their portfolio."
- Woodford: "Rossi's e-Cat was core to our investment."
DOH!
- IH supporter: "The dispute had nothing to do with the IP. The IP is worthless and IH knew it all along"
- Woodford: "This dispute is about control of the IP."
DOH!
- IH supporter (before the settlement): "I'll admit that if IH lets go of the license, they will have perceived their position as weak."
- IH supporter (after the settlement): "IH was very smart to give back the license, because it was worthless."
DOH!
- IH supporter: "IH is going to bury Rossi and expose him for the scum that he is."
- IH settles with nothing in return, other than the ability to walk away from it all
DOH!
Well IHFanboy, my position has never changed. My name says it all. I accurately predicted years ago on another site exactly how this would turn out: no product to market, no verification by IH that this works, and IH eventually abandoning the Ecat, as 100% of entities who spend their time and money with LENR/CF always do. Please don't lump me with people who had any hope this would turn out any other way. It will take a lot more than plumbing thrown together in a garage to violate the laws of nuclear physics. Just ask the scientists who spend billions at a time to rigorously prove and verify those laws.
-
The other thing I'll add is that IH had complete, exclusive access to E-cat IP for about 3 or 4 years or so. They also had a team of highly qualified scientists working on it for them. None of the other bloggers, posters, talking heads, or believers have had any scientific access at all, much less complete access as IH had, to the ECat technology. The fact that IH gave it all back for nothing in return but mutually ending the case clearly shows what they thought it was worth ($0). This includes the present Ecat as well as all future iterations the Ecat people will come out with (quarks, etc..). I also predict that the quark will have one carefully scripted demo which is ruled as a success. The quark will be abandoned soon after that for another new improved version of the Ecat with nothing ever coming of the quarkx. This will repeat until the Ecat people run out of money or find someone else to invest in them. Hopefully, it's the former and not the latter.
-
@Adrian Ashfield
Adrian, what would you do with a QuarkQX? It would require fifty thousand of them for a megawatt source, each requiring control, a source of input power, cooling and coordination. Not to mention that just sitting there, they run at 2600 degree C. Please tell me you understand how preposterous this claim is!
@everyone
It is the frequent way of choosing marks for con men to make claims so preposterous that anyone smart enough to require proper testing will not even bother to pay attention. This is one of the reasons Nigerian scams in email are so badly done. It's on purpose. Nigerian scammers do not try to appeal to smart people-- it's a waste of effort. Free energy scammers do something similar and that is exactly what Rossi has done with his QuarkQX claims.
Well, when millions of dollars are involved, one has to deal with the investors' attorneys and not just the investors. It is befuddling to me that IH's attorneys allowed the initial 10.5 to 11.5 million investment when NASA's attorneys and the Hydrofusion investor team's attorneys both vetoed investment in the Ecat. Since the Ecat people chose to take IH to court, the attorneys for the next investment team will be very careful to avoid the hassle of being sued by the Ecat people. That's why I previously said future investments in the Ecat will be more difficult to find.
-
Ha Ha Ha. The Ecat people did not receive one single penny, not even legal fees, from their case. IH/Darden have stated at least once in the past that Ni-H LENR does not work and that they were abandoning all research into Ni-H. So, they had the case settled by relinquishing rights to IP they had already deemed worthless? This is priceless. I fully expect Ecat operations to soon go the way of Steorn and defkalion in terms of completely shutting down and going out of business. Or, because no one in their right mind would ever again invest in the Ecat without rigid University physics lab level independent testing after seeing IH being sued, the Ecat will just slowly fade from sight like so many of these CF like "inventions" with nothing but occasional talk resulting from it. Say my name.
-
Yes, I am in contact with MFMP. But I am taking little bit different way.
Interestingly there are many materials available for doing replication, but replications are not happening nearly at all after few failed attempts. I can't see any reason why…The reason replicators disappear after the "critics" and "skeptics" rip into their work is quite obvious. After fixing all the mistakes and measurement errors, the excess heat they thought they saw completely vanishes.
-
Personally, I can't agree with the "indisputable" and no replication required claims. Something becomes indisputable only after it has been replicated by multiple qualified organizations.
-
And you continue to disprove your original point that I commented on.
I fully endorse the scientific method. But I do not restrict it to the universities, or a premise that something is fake. I do look for examples where something is false, but it not always a reliable or useful lever for obtaining the truth or pointing the way to new discoveries. Serendipity and synchronicity combined play at least as big a role in the progress of science as intentionally directed research.
I have proven every point I have stated and I won't attempt to guess why you say otherwise. I also disagree with your possible assertion that LENR science can advance without going through qualified authorities. According to the scientific method, every initial LENR experimental claim of success is a hypothesis. This hypothesis can never advance to be considered a theory much less a law of physics unless it passes multiple repeated experiments by several qualified scientific authorities. And these qualified authorities are reputable University physics depts. It's an undeniable fact that zero (0) LENR hypotheses of the 100's or 1000's since P&F have been verified by University physics depts.
-
Your link did not support your statement. In fact, I am fairly sure the science fair did not require university calibre research, or starting with the premise that something was fake or false.
"Volcanoes Are Fake Paper Mache, Vinegar and Baking Soda Scams" would be a great science fair exhibit, though.
Ok. I keep forgetting on sites like this with a positive bias I have to break things down. Here is a link to the definition of the scientific method from a physics dept:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.htmlA few of the key points the physics dept. states are :
"The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion.""The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false"
"A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable"
"Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded."
"There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith"
You and others will continue to argue with me because you can't accept the reality that there are no experiments that a physics dept. can repeatably run to verify LENR and that there is no evidence in nature for the existence of LENR. Say my name.
-
quote
lenrisnotreal wrote:You know, that scientific method which states that a phenomena is to be
considered false or fake unless 1) verified by University physics
department caliber research and 2) then peer reviewed independently by
more University physics department caliber research.This comment is as unintentionally hilarious as Abd's implied statement that he himself is "given to cogency"...
end quote
Sorry, but misdirection won't work. You failed to address my two undeniable points: 1) not one reputable University physics dept. has ever put their name on the line by supporting a claim of positive LENR results 2) The conditions for LENR are extremely common yet there has not been a single instance of LENR observed in nature. Please explain these two items before continuing your discussion with me.
-
Quote
You know, that scientific method which states that a phenomena is to be
considered false or fake unless 1) verified by University physics
department caliber research and 2) then peer reviewed independently by
more University physics department caliber research.LOL. That is a very poor description of the scientific method.
end QuoteHere is a link describing the basic scientific method. Which parts of this do you think a Physics dept would skip before publishing positive LENR results?
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/…t_scientific_method.shtml
