Posts by DAK2

Magicsound,

The mass at 32 indicates an air leak (as likely you already know). Air will disappear faster than water and hydrogen. Both molecules are very difficult to eliminate under vacuum. Do you have a mass 40? Squirt acetone around the outside (care of the flammability!!!) and look for mass 43. Not knowing the set-up, you could have back streaming through the pump (not really likely)?? Why 304 vs. 316? Just curious. Never liked Swagelock fittings in vacuum systems. I tended to go with VCR instead. I also never liked O-rings vs. knife edges but now days I have seen a lot of O-rings (they leak helium though).

Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing results.

Jed,

I have not been following this forum lately. Can you provide a quick link to Mizuno's recent results?

Question to the members:

Assume that a vaccine is 100% effective. Also assume COVID-19 kills 1% of those that are infected (it may be 3% in the US). However, the vaccine kills 1 in 1000 individuals. Would you take it? If it kills 1 in 10K, would you take it? What level of safety is necessary for you to accept the vaccine? The MERS vaccine had issues in animal testing and I am told by reliable sources that it had problems in some human early trials that caused substantial health problems. In that case, MERS disappeared but was about 10% fatal so a vaccine was important.

Statistically, anything less than a 1% death rate would be taking the vaccine is the best bet. The difference in many minds is that getting a disease is never 100% (for COVID19 is will likely be in the high 80s) and unknown but the risk of a vaccination is known and voluntary (or should be). You can play with the numbers of risk of disease vs. vaccination vs. efficacity and decide when you get the vaccine or take the risk of the disease. Always remember you have about a 1% chance of dying in a traffic accident by commuting to work by car over a 40 year period.

BTW: Some military vaccines are labeled "experimental" as they are not FDA cleared "approved" and I think they are mandatory (there were court cases on this aspect).

Allan,,

For your Al can recycling a question:

If you limit recycling to 75% is this a single melt?

If it is, then a sale at $600/ton seems fairly profitable considering the energy to melt is from combustion rather than electricity.

The remaining Al-C can be leached with either acid or base for further recovery. This is likely too messy and energy intensive to go from an aluminum salt back to metal.

Dewey,

Do you know the model number of the 5ppb Finnigan?

BTW: 5 ppb of what in what and how?

can. Interesting picture. The confusion is simple: voltage across the resistor = meaningless calculations; voltage across the system = valid COP (assuming proper measurements, of course - which not be discussed if the initial premise is wrong).

Just show me the light for his system running off of a AAA 1.5V battery for any extended period (say 1 hr.) and I would be astounded. I do not understand how one could get a continuous plasma outputting light from 100 mV. If he claims that he needs 100 mV, then a simple resistor divider could provide that. Again, not power supply from the wall but a standing, independent power source. If he needs a current regulated system (as some suspect), then circuitry could be built using the battery as well.

BTW: a AAA battery has about 1.4 WHr of energy (to 1.2V) so 20W (are we talking about 20W or just a slight glow as I am confused about that point) of light for 1Hr would be quite impressive.

IHFB: I share in the confusion. You need the total voltage into the system or better across the cell. An analogy is to measure the output of a iron by measuring the voltage drop across the cord. You can measure current but not power in that case.

For me, I did not understand how you can create a plasma with 100 mV. You could theoretically maintain a plasma with a low voltage if it was making energy. Therefore, just show that the voltage from the power supply is X and with X small and that would be impressive (at least to me).

All of this "experimentation" with plasmas is likely misguided. Has anyone seen excess power from a deuterium/hydrogen lamp in the past 100 years of making them? Consider how they work. They are certainly high-temperature systems. Have any extra atomic lines appeared in the spectrum from such a system? Helium or extra atoms would show this in spades. You could argue that a hydrogen lamp does not have LAH present and that is the key. Energetics and Sandia have seen strange things in plasmas but they are explainable by conventional physics and where not in the range of COPs > 100.

.

As to the "pure" alumina question..

I had previous posed an answer as a question in the hope that someone else would pick-up that XRD was not appropriate to determine the purity of a material. This is especially true where the XRD spectrum is not shown for independent analysis. I want to reiterate that (IMHO) XRD will provide a false impression if the diluent is amorphous (or of small crystalline size). This is often the case for binders.

From a quick search an interested party may wish to look at:

http://www.americanpharmaceuti…-Powder-X-ray-Diffraction

It refers to drugs and binders here the binders often outweigh the drugs but the principle will be the same for alumina. The broad background may be missed or ignored. Note the 10% comment.

XRF would have been a better methodology to apply and would have been much more meaningful for emissivity determinations as XRF only samples the near surface - say 20um (depends on the element and matrix).

Thus, everyone can be right - if the correct sample was taken, the XRD spectra could show 99.9% alumina. This does not mean 99.9% pure material. Reporting that XRD shows X does not mean that it is X. It just means that some analytical method say that it is and not supplying the actual data is a mistake.

The material may have been Durapot. But that can be 99.9% pure alumina plus lots of other amorphous binders and finely ground-up road dirt with lots of asphalt thrown in. You cannot tell. Reporting that it is 99.9% alumina would be correct.

The sample may not have been taken in the correct place. Who knows?

The sample may have been coated with some other paint. And guess what - it could be too thin to see by XRD or amorphous or not sampled.

Bottom line, they used the wrong analytical method. The analytical method reported X. And in end it really does not matter for this current case.

From my reading of Darden's EMAIL, the testers and Darden had a better handle on emissivity than tends to be made-out in this forum. Given the difficult testing situation with Dr. R, they did the best possible.

Dewey,

Wasn't there a shake-down of the 1MW plant in Italy? How good was that data set? Was it 250KW in and 250kW out? Or the dry vs. wet steam problem because no one sparged anything?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Alan - We know that the Bologna University folks have kept their integrity so there are no questions or concerns there - I have no doubt that they tested and reported on material that was delivered to them by Levi. Taking it from there, what part of the story would you like adjust from a Durapot 810 reactor at Lugano to 99% pure alumina material test result with Levi as the middleman per his own words?

Dewey,

Was the analytical test by X-Ray diffraction? If so, what does an X-ray look like if you take say 80% crystalline material and mix it with 20% amorphous material of similar density? Won't the amorphous material just elevate the background and the spectrum be dominated by the crystalline material? Alumina has many different diffraction spectra. What phase was identified? When you say 99% pure what does that mean - 99% of what you can see? It is like saying some metal is 99.99% pure but only relative to what was analyzed and the precision and sensitivity for various impurities.

Quote from JedRothwell

This is not complicated.

Look at any fountain. The pipe going up to the top of the fountain is full. The gravity return portion of the pipe that levels out is half empty, or mostly empty. Like this:

Or like this:

See? Half empty. The pipe going up from the pond to the top of this concrete structure is full. The pipe coming out of the concrete structure is half empty. Same pipe, same pipe diameter. How hard is this to understand?

The pipe going from the Rossi reactor to the heat exchanger in the customer site is full. The heat exchanger produces back pressure, which keeps the pipe full, and also prevents the water from boiling. The water leaving the heat exchange at a lower temperature is in a gravity return pipe. That pipe is half empty. It goes into a large plastic tank, which was shown in a photo posted here. As you see in the photo, the tank is not airtight and not pressurized. Therefore, the pipe going into it has to be gravity return.

Display More

Jed,

to you quote: "was shown in the photo here"

Could you provide a link to the picture of the tank?

Quote from THHuxleynew

GIGO

P - it would be nice to think there is enough info in this data to get a handle on what was going on but it must be a long shot. Until the ERV antes up with precisely where these measurements are taken and what is the piping we are lost. Especially because (presumably) if each e-cat is monitored individually these figures may be averages. Do we have anything anywhere that states what the numbers represent with reference to precise measurements and piping?

@IHFB

You do indeed have a different approach to this problem than me, or others. As I understand it you reckon:

(1) either this stuff works or Rossi is blatently and deliberately fraudulent

(2) You would not want to view him as fraudulent, and on general principle think others looking at evidence will be biassed against him

It might help to take a more nuanced approach. Whether Rossi is legally fraudulent here will be decided by the Court. What we do know for sure is that his statements and actions cannot be trusted:

"Customer" - nope

"Hydrofusion test" - Rossi claims results were faked negative, so either he is lying in this claim, or lying to a previous potential backer.

"Bass" - fabricated business card

"Test" - refusal to allow on IH premisses with proper controls, refusal to allow IH inspection, Rossi present 24/7 and penon swans in a few times and now does not support his report which as has been pointed out is farcically unprofessional and not fit for purpose

"Massive over-reading of input power using average V and A" Remained adamant he was correct doing this when Mats spent a long time explaining his mistake.

It is absolutely not necessary to get into Rossi's mind more than this. My pet theory (speculation) is that he is a performer who sees adulation of his audience as much more real than any physical facts. You don't have to decide whether he is deliberately fraudulent, laughing at others, or in an act of cognitive dissonance believes his own words or just does not care about facts, seeing them as ephemeral and truth as infinitely alternative.

Display More

Do you have a reference to the "massive over-reading of input power...." comment (i.e. URL link)?

Quote from THHuxleynew

That was Levi's argument - sort of. "Well even if you set e = 1 you still get COP=2". But of course if you make emissivity = 1 you overestimate power output. In the Lugano case the Al2O3 gives emissivity in IR band close to 1, but total emissivity (determining output power) of only 0.5 or so. The conditions and material used just happen to maximise the errors from any assumption that emissivity seen by the camera is the same as emissivity used for power output calculation.

I agree with you completely and understand the arguments. I was trying to get some value from a poor experiment. In my opinion the MFMP "reproduction" is the ONLY way to understand such a system but one needs a sensitivity analysis (basically vary a lot of runs) to see where errors can occur. Until that is done (if ever), I am still sitting on the fence if the COP >1.

I downplay calculations because of the unknown fudge factors. I look at things as follows:

You have a well-known theory that is based on first principles (select almost any theory). The theorists claim great success and win lots of prizes. The experimentalist (me) then applies that theory to real experiments and finds that the theory does not work because the theorist simplified things too much. So the experimentalist then invents fudge factors (in this case emissivity values) to make the results agree with theory. Everyone is then happy because you have a theory and results agree with the theory - except in this case the fudge factors vary with temperature and material such that the only way to get accurate results (whatever accurate is in the experimenter's mind) is to measure the fudge factors for a given system under study. Under these conditions is the theory helpful? In the case of thermography, the theory is widely used but when you have a certain system where the temperature actually matters, then you go with experimental values almost exclusively (or calibrate the system with emissivity dots, for example). Hopefully, the experimentalist is wise enough to know how his/her instruments work and take that into consideration. That is happening less and less now days as sophisticated equipment with proprietary algorithms are being employed and you trust the numbers which are given to n++ significant figures.

Lugano was such a case where stuff mattered greatly and it made one guess the experimental values because they were never measured properly. With these guessed values, the theory is then flexible enough such that you can select some fudge factors to get the data to agree with experiment and claim success. Thus, in some eyes, with a given set of values and assumptions, you see a COP=1. With other assumptions you see a COP >1. Who do you believe when both can be reasonable? Well if you were to place bets you go with the fudge factors that agree with conventional science and get on with your life. Unfortunately, that happens in many fields and thus new science remains undiscovered (more often great claims are made that have more mundane explanations).

I will continue to follow this field, and until the fence falls one way or the other, I will try to keep an open mind.

Do you want to discuss the data sets obtained before Lugano? They are more interesting to me.

Quote from Alan Smith

Double the current can give 30x improvement in radiation - for some temperatures at least

In the Jones paper that you referenced, where did you get a factor of 30x and how does that relate to COP? I can maybe assume that you mean if you increase the current into the filament by a factor of 2 you get more emission by some factor (say 30) but that is not obvious from the data. I am also missing the reference to Italian remark as Jones worked at GE in the US and FAR Associates are in OH.

BTW: I was always confused by the discussion of emissivity vs. temperature vs. radiation. To me, emissivity is a fudge factor that makes radiation and temperature approach an ideal black body. If you just make emissivity 1, then you will always underestimate temperature. You can see that if you plot the Jones data and match it to a pure t^4 curve. The emissivity will vary to make the curves match.

What you need to work with Lugano data are the curves from the MFMP where you measure some reading with the camera and know the power input. To the extent that the MFMP mimicked Lugano (same type of materials (as this is very critical for these materials), camera, and same size structure, etc.) that data will avoid all the issues with emissivity. For example, it does not matter what the temperature is (as long as radiation dominates). You get a certain brightness from the camera at a given power input. For the MFMP data, I would have like to have seen them repeat the measurements under varying conditions so that I could get a feel for the errors, but I cannot request experiments that I do not take part in.

We can go into thought problems about emissivity and temperature but many of the forum readers do not like those kind of theoretical discussions and they do not appear to increase anyone's understanding.