FWIW the scope of the Machinery Directive is set out here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega…2-20190726&from=EN#tocId3
Quite aside from the fact that what is actually in scope is basically just mechanical things, Article 1 para 2 (c) specifically excludes from its scope:
Quote"machinery specially designed or put into service for nuclear purposes which, in the event of failure, may result in an emission of radioactivity;"
You'll see from my posting history that I usually make myself look foolish when trying to make a technical contribution, so I fully expect this to be shot down in flames... but here goes anyway!
Has this possible error scenario been ruled out? Say for example the active reactor was in direct line of sight of the RTDs measuring air outlet temperature, and the control one was not, then thermal radiation from the active one (only) could impinge on the RTD. The effect would be small (as previously calculated, if I understood correctly) but the actual RTD sensor head would have a tiny thermal mass, so not much power from thermal radiation might result in a reading change.
Presumably if it happened, this effect would make the RTD read higher than it would with airflow alone.
I couldn't immediately see from either of the papers in the OP where exactly the outlet air RTDs were located with respect to the reactors, and hence whether they could be in line of sight of either reactor. As the paper reports two RTDs were used to measure output, and these were in close agreement, they would presumably both have to be in direct view of one reactor but not the other, for this to be at all a possible scenario.
Come to think of it, maybe line of sight is not necessary if thermal radiation could be reflected off a shiny surface onto the RTD sensor heads? Guess in a 'worst case' there could even be a sort of focusing effect whereby the concave interior of a shiny pipe or whatever could concentrate reactor infrared emissions onto the RTDs (especially if placed near pipe centre)?
Presumably this would be easily eliminated as a possible error by ensuring complete symmetry in the reactor placement vs outlet RTD placement, or by just using one reactor for both control and active runs, or by somehow shielding the RTDs from direct radiation.
FWIW I did find a reference of sorts to RTDs being sensitive to thermal radiation:
www.burnsengineering.com/local/uploads/content/files/Accuracy_II_Notes.pdf
(the slides titled "Error sources" and "other sources")
TTH - typo para 5 - endothermic not exothermic
You said "If you are a real business man you do not worry about being embarrassed." Then why the hell does Rossi, AA, etc. make such a huge deal about keeping the name of the customer secret? And if it is truly the huge corporation that Rossi claims, then they have a PR department, and lawyers, used to handling exposures such as this.
If a big corporation gets access to a new technology that could have a significant impact on their profitability, wouldn't they legally have to disclose this to shareholders and/or the stock market, in general terms at least?
A: Hey boss! You know that new energy source I found out about online? They're now taking orders and I think we should give it a try.
B: Is that the one based on cold fusion you told me about? Still seems unlikely.
A: No actually it's Low Energy Nuclear Reactions now. Completely different thing. Scientists backing it and everything.
B: Mmm. Nuclear? You sure this is something we can use?
A: Sure - the inventor says it's been certified and everything.
B: OK get Legal to check it out. Meanwhile have you got some spec sheets for me?
A: Not right now. The product launch was on video.
B: OK drop me the link on email and I'll take a look.
(a few minutes later)
B: You must have sent me the wrong link. I clicked it and some puppets came up.
A: Actually that's the one. That's just the inventor's sense of humour. You probably only watched a few minutes - you need to watch the other two hours as well.
A: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Nice one A, you had me going there. Now get back to work before I fire you.
A: Really Boss, I was being serious. Watch the other 2 hours and you'll see - there's an amazing plasma ballerina putting out the power and it's all being measured scientifically.
B: WTF do ballerinas have to do with it? Anyway - 2 hours? I'm not wasting my time on that - do me a summary of the main specs, costs, delivery timescale, commercial terms and have it on my desk tomorrow and I'll take a look.
A: Actually that stuff is not actually released yet. We need to submit our company to vetting by the inventor to see if we're suitable. And sign an NDA. Then he'll tell us the details.
B: Seriously?
A: Yes, it's so that there won't be too much interest because it's such an amazing deal.
B: But that video is actually from the people promoting this device?
A: Yes, it is - they're not interested in flashy presentation.
B: Well they're clearly not interested in my business if that's their idea of a product presentation.
A: Boss, wait! We could be in on the ground floor of this, and cut our energy costs in half or even better!
B: Based on what? That joker in the video?
A: He's actually an amazing inventor. Google him!
B: OK I will but you'd better not be wasting my time.
(a bit later)
B: A! Get in here. Honestly I thought you had some common sense about you but looks like I was wrong. So I googled this Rossi guy and guess what comes up - all sorts of stuff about con-men and lawsuits. So I phoned my golf buddy who worked with a guy who worked at Industrial Heat and he put me straight. It's all complete fantasy! The only people who still believe in it is some fringe forums on the internet. And you actually got taken in by this ridiculous charade? YOU'RE FIRED!
Go on then. More details of Rossi's irresistable pricing scheme:
Dear DR. Rossi,
Herta Hoster asked you how much the customer would save using your reactors instead of the customers current system and you indicated roughly 20%. It was a bit unclear to me if you meant that they would save 20% or that they would spend 20% of what they are currently spending. So if the customer is spending $100 for there current system would they now be spending $20 with your new reactors or would they be spending $80 with your new reactors? Sorry if this is redundant I just want to have a clear picture of the savings your reactors will provide. I am very excited that you are getting so close to the introduction of your of new power system.
Sincerely,
Robert Dorr
Robert Dorr:
If our Customers now are spending 100, with the Ecat plants they will spend 80 and the price will be indexed with the variation of the market price, to maintain the 20% of earning for the Customer.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Also this...
Dear Andrea,
When you say that the cost of E-Cat heat will be “indexed with the variation of the market price”, do you mean:
1. That it will always be 20 per cent less expensive than whatever the customer would normally use (e.g. natural gas)?
2. That if the price of (for example) natural gas rises, the cost of E-Cat heat will also rise?
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- no
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Not sure if that means that his price can go down but not up? Does this make sense to anyone?
Don't think anyone has commented on this yet:
Hello Mr. Rossi,
some of the posts in the recent days refer to the delivery of heat to a customer, for which he is charged. How is that measured? By some calorimeter ? Or by indirectly measuring temperature and estimating the flow?
You are aware that you’d need a calibrated approved calorimeter-device in most countries?
greetings
DvH
DvH:
It will be a forfait: for example, we are going to supply a system for a total power of 40 MW to a Customer and the Customer will pay 40 MWh/h, even if he will not use in part or in total this amount of energy. Obviously the Client will not pay the amount due for the quantity of energy we will not supply for malfunctions deriving from our responsibility ( errors of us, lack of our maintenance, breakages due to our fault et similia ). Therefore if, for example, we will have a blackout of 10 hours due to our errors, the Customer will not pay 400 MWh, that will be deducted from the bill at the end of the month.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
and this
Dear Dr. Rossi, the lump sum payment may not be convenient for a customer.
If, for example, the power used varies between 40 MW and 10 MW over time, he will still pay as if he were constantly receiving 40 MW. Even with the 30% discount on the cost of energy, he will pay a lot more.
It would be better, I think, to measure the real energy supplied.
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Italo Romano:
We adopt the lump sum. Obviously our Clients must order an amount of heat they are sure to consume.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sounds like he's warming us up for no output measurement by the 'customer'...
You must have a framed copy om the wall describing how how Rossi can cheat the customer by selling energy at a loss. He wouldn't need two cables as the customer doesn't get to see what he is doing but only pays for the heat received.
Of course the reactors don't cost anything to build and install and his current backer is to foolish to notice that hey don't work. Dream on until next year.
Adrian, the whole point of my post is that Rossi would NOT be cheating the customer. In the scenario I outlined he would indeed be giving the customer excess heat, so the customer would see lower bills and could then report this as a success.
In reality of course Rossi would be paying for any 'excess' energy somehow delivered (by subterfuge rather than LENR), but that would be small beer compared to the value to him of an endorsement from a seemingly credible and independent customer.
No matter what Rossi does it would still be easy for the customer to detect fraud. All he need do is compare his utility bills before and after Rossi installs his kit. Most manufacturers are well aware of their overheads. They would have to be really stupid not to notice increased energy costs.
But assuming a real (independent but gullible) customer, not another Rossi-controlled set-up, Rossi wouldn't be trying to cheat the customer. He'd want them to get what was promised or at least definitely over unity results, so they can credibly say that his tech is real and he can reap the investments that would follow.
He might even allow credible power measurement and proper checking of the input (from customer supply) and output (to customer's process).
How then to ensure the customer's bills are reduced? By smuggling in energy to the 'plant' to which only he has access. You can store a certain amount of chemical energy in a container of course... and 'unexpected difficulties' could mean Rossi delivers a lower output and COP than advertised (but still over unity) to make the stored fuel last longer.
Ideally (for Rossi) there'd be a second cable running off a separate supply (e.g. in plain sight under the guise of being just for the 'remote control' comms) to provide the 'excess heat'. Otherwise, watch out for regular 'maintenance' visits from Rossi in a large car or van which parks up close to the unit, all shielded from view of course to 'protect the secrets'... or some excuse which means he needs to exchange the entire shipping container after the first few weeks, and then some contrived early end to the test after a few more weeks...
He could then crow about the tech having been 'proven' by a real customer, even if it was only just over unity and for a short period.
Can think of other possible methods to smuggle in 'excess heat', and also plenty of ways to detect/prevent any attempt to do so - kinda depends on how much control Rossi has over the installation and access. He'd be very unlikely to go ahead with anything but a fake customer, IMO, unless he can control the situation sufficiently to be able to minimise risk of detection.
But the point is that even with a 'real' customer who checks their bills carefully and declares at the end that they saved money, Rossi could still have been faking the results.
Is there something about the 'geiger blips' that can't be explained by Rossi (or assistant) flipping open the lid of a lead-lined box containing a suitable source few times, when nobody is watching?
$100? Where is the schematic and component list?
Spreadsheet link in "how to build it" tab, scroll down to 'purchasing components' here:
http://www.cosmicwatch.lns.mit.edu/detector#section1
or direct link to the spreadsheet:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
~Upton Sinclair
This quote can be logically extended to: "his salary or that of his friends"
Surely if LENR/Rossi-tech were proven real, with his skills and background Kirk would be highly employable by all of the major companies who would be scrambling to exploit the revolutionary new field... same goes for 'hot fusion' scientists who are supposedly ignoring LENR to protect their jobs. I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy to be headhunted by new LENR companies or research institutes, who would be desperate to recruit people with expertise in physics/science/engineering.
Sadly the prospect of lucrative employability in a glorious LENR future probably does not apply to those who are merely forum advocates of LENR, however dedicated.
I want to know where Shanahan says that a bucket of water can evaporate completely overnight without anomalous causes. WHERE DOES HE WRITE THAT?
I have no dog in this fight but happened to remember some search terms that found what is I think the original quote from Kirk, here.
Kirk quotes Jed as saying in the report PDF: "A bucket left by itself for 10 days in a university laboratory will not lose any measurable level of water to evaporation." and Kirk goes on to assert that this is "nothing but an assumption based on wishful thinking".
The words attributed to Jed are indeed in the PDF.
There may be subsequent posts which go further, but if this is the source of the evaporation claim, as I read it, the most Kirk could be said to have asserted in this post is that the bucket in question COULD in fact lose a MEASURABLE level of water to evaporation.
EDIT - Doh, just seen Jed already linked to that post a couple of messages up. As you were - I'll go back to lurking...
Hi Barty, thanks for all your work on this. Could I make some comments about the mobile version please (reading it on Chrome on an Android phone):
- The mobile version shows a list of topics, both within each forum and the 'latest posts' list. But unlike the desktop version, there's no way to 'go to last post'. Instead, clicking a topic just takes you to the first post in that topic. I guess that makes sense for new readers, but for the 'latest posts' page at least, which will be used mostly by regular readers, it would be better if it could take you to the last post in the topic instead.
- Also, in the mobile version the list (like this: <1,2,3 ....28> ) of pages within each topic is only shown at the bottom of the page. Could it be added at the top, too?
So now (on mobile), if you e.g. want to see what is new in the Rossi vs Darden Part 2 thread, you might click on it from the 'latest posts' page. It will take you to the first posting in the thread, on the first page. So you have to scroll all the way down, click on the number for the last page, then scroll all the way down that page to find the new posts at the end.
Sending you direct to the last message (like it does if you click on the user icon for the last poster in desktop view) would be best, and also a page list also at the top of each page would save time.
Thanks!
(EDIT - there's no separate mobile version, I see - it has the same behaviour if I shrink my desktop window. Also, I wasn't logged in when viewing it on mobile, so the 'unread posts' item wasn't there. But I still think my suggestions would be useful for non logged in users)
Nevertheless, absent some emergency, this is the last post from Alternative and possibly the last regular post from Abd here. Unless a consensus welcoming me here appears, I am moving my writing and study elsewhere.
Just to say I hope Abd returns.
Thanks for all the explanations - I'll ponder further and see if I can get it straight and then think of a graphic to sum it up...
@Paradigmnoia
Damn, and i thought I understood it, at least in outline...
QuoteHowever, what you are showing is exactly what confuses most people, and randombit0.
I thought his explanations were (basically) ignoring the effect of a distorted emission spectrum (like that of alumina at high temp) on what the camera can see and report on correctly given its narrow window, when the camera 'expects' a standard grey body. So I was sort of trying to contradict this - i.e. show how the camera can over-report the temperature (as appears to have happend at Lugano). His argument is (as I understand it) that somehow the shape of the curve doesn't matter... which it wouldn't if you could look at the whole spectrum, but the Optris can't.
QuoteWhere it will be hard to deal with is the emissivity factor. This is because the camera does not deal with the area under the spectrum curve like that. In your version, the camera reads too high and needs a fractional factor to lower the temperature reported.
What actually happens is that the Optris window allows the camera to see the correct temperature with the curve, in the third image. The area under the curve is not examined, only the line, which is a section of a Planck curve.
I'm not sure I really follow that... . I wasn't saying the camera looks at the area under the curve - my point is that it can't! It just sees the heavy red lines i.e. the sections of the curve within its window. Then it needs to somehow derive a temperature from that limited info.
So are you saying it looks at the _shape_ of the curve and derives temperature from that? Or is the 'curve' I'm using in the illustration misleading in itself?
I do think a graphical approach (as simplified as possible) to explaining this is more likely to help those of us who 'don't get it' than more pure text. If you can prompt me with changes to the above graphic, or suggest another approach, I'll be happy to draw it up if that would help.
(oops, written before your second message and edits. Will look at those now)
Attempts to communicate this issue have finally prompted me to register (just a curious onlooker, no connection to any interested party!)
Does this help?
Please forgive the very 'quick and dirty' illustration.
