Posts by Bruce__H

Quote from Robert Horst

The double line structure looks like an artifact of the way you plotted it (points without connecting lines). The temperature just has small variations around 33C. See my plot of the same region below.

I don't think I am looking at an artefact of plotting. You and I seem to be dealing with datasets that are actually different. For instance, in the 53 seconds between 7:52:73 and 7:53:36 my datasheet only shows 24 valid ThermoA data values (the rest show as "Error"). In your plot, on the other hand, there are 53 separate values. This leads me to think that your plot is showing data where interpolated values have been imputed for about half of the data points.

Quote from Robert Horst

The way I read the current line is to think of it as set points of the PID.

Negative = too hot, cut all current

Positive = too cool, add current to heat up

Zero = keep at this temperature by cycling current on and off

So it makes more sense if you think of the current plot as the commanded current, not measured current. I don't know if the spreadsheet really has commanded current, or if the zero point of the current sensor is wrong. That would be critical to know in interpreting the data.

I mostly agree. i think that LION has attempted not to use the PID controller at all here. Instead he has set out to control the heating coil current using the rheostat on the PCM in the setup. I don't know how he has programmed the PID parameters -- whatever settings he has used may have left some unintentional residual activity which is what we are seeing. I have asked LION.

Quote from Robert Horst

Here is another plot from later. It is ramping to a higher temperature set point and the current stays on at 1 A.

I note that something like this happened on thermocouple B, but not thermocouple A, during one of the calibration runs (see file LOG00001). In this run there were no reactors in the heating chamber.

Quote from Robert Horst

Here is a plot of the current and ThermoA from a short portion of the run 3 raw data spreadsheet:

The fine structure of the Current and Thermocouple A traces do seem correlated ...

In these plots I have not imputed any data values at points where the thermocouple A trace contained "Error" messages. So this may look a bit different from can's data. The current trace contains no such errors.

I note that the reduction in the variance of the thermocouple readings beginning at 7:32:10 is very sudden -- much quicker than I think would be allowed for by the thermal time constants of either the heating chamber or the thermocouple -- so I suspect that there is an extrinsic signal that is being impressed on both the current and thermocouple channels from somewhere. I am also puzzled by the double-line nature of the thermocouple readings at this time. This is not due to straightforward discretation errors because there are occasional intermediate values.

Quote from Roseland67

My first boss out of college told me

“Never confuse activity with accomplishment”.

This is basically a restatement of an epigram due to Seneca

"Love of bustle is not industry"

Quote from can

I'm not sure I understood what I should do with the snippets but check if the data attached corresponds to them.

Hi can.

Yes. You have acquired 10-second data segments each of which ends on a leading edge of one of the transients. What I would now do is average together these data segments such that you end up with a single 10 second trace. So, to take the current trace first ... if you have n snippets, the first point in the averaged current trace will be the average of n initial data points from the n snippets, the the second point in the averaged current trace will be the average of second data points from the n snippets, and so on. The random components in each snippet will cancel out in the averaging but the signal that you used to trigger the acquisitions will not, it will pop out more and more as you make n larger. Now use the same snippets but this time look at, say, the averaged radiation trace. If there is any signal in the radiation trace that is somehow locked to the transients in the current trace then you should see them pop out too. Random or uncorrelated components will be averaged away.

It is actually more usual to acquire snippets with the triggering stimulus in the middle. For instance, for the transient that occurred on Nov 11 at 0:00:13 you would acquire everything from 0:00:08 to 0:00:18. Also, with respect to these particular data where there are clearly different eras during which transients occur, I would just work on one particular era at a time and not average together information from different eras.

I think that can is using a library of timeseries analysis routines for his graphing and analysis. If they are up to the task, then the way to see if the transients in the current trace are reflected in the radiation trace is to use event-triggered averaging. This consists of using the current transients to trigger acquisition of, say, 10 second snippets of the radiation data. If you then average together all of these snippets, the random components will decrease as the square root of the number of acquisitions and any signal correlated with the transients will pop out.

I can accomplish this too, eventually. But I'm not sure that going down this particular rabbit hole is worth it. Can should also probably pass on this unless it is easy for him.

Quote from can

A close-up view does indeed show that the on-off action is regular and not occurring at a very fast rate. Still, there's something strange with the actual values.

Weird stuff. The downward transients in the current trace usually come once every 23 seconds. Each one is brief -- lasting 1 second or less -- and they appear to have no important effect on reactor temperature. Could the 23 second periodicity actually reflect a much higher PID duty cycle that is aliased down to a super low frequency by the 1 Hz acquisition rate?

Quote from Shane D.

OK then, I was wrong. It was not independent. Nonetheless, it was a very rigorous process. Keep in mind; to their credit they initiated this, and then willingly subjected themselves to a thorough going over, so that should count for something? That said, my last say on this matter is   

And also, by your definition, BEC has been independently verified by SRI, so I would assume that based on that, you are a full believer in LENR?

Following Alan's terminology, what seems to be going on here is some sort of verification process. I'm not sure I would call it "independent" verification. It is more like 'guided' verification. And, sticking with the same sort of terminology, I would class SRI's studies of the Brillouin prototypes as independent verifications but not independent replications (because SRI did not build the cores themselves from a recipe).

You want me to be a full believer in LENR because of SRI's reports? Sorry, that is too black-and-white and I'm more of a Bayesian type of guy. I would still like to see independent replication and I'd like to see a bigger effect so as to leave competing non-LENR explanations in the dust. Still, the SRI experiments have increased my estimation that LENR may be real.

Quote from Shane D.

Being done as we speak, and the reactors are in good form putting on a double show. Not that this is the first group to the barn, nor the most qualified, but with the numbers involved, cross section of expertise, resources available, and equipment, this will certainly qualify as an independent verification.

That is not independent verification. Independent verification consists of some group constructing their own reactors and getting the same results without the direct participation of the original researchers.

My favourite correspondent on Rossi`s site is the joyously named "Rafaelle Bongo". He is a reliable Rossi acolyte. To my intense disappointment, though, over time I have become persuaded that he is not a sock puppet but a real person.

Shane D.

I would prefer it if you would just say in clear English whatever you feel you can say about this.

Sorry if I sound grouchy but there is a tendency on this thread to speak in a weird poetic way about things that really should be dealt with as plainly and clearly as possible. While I understand that people tend to feel romantic about the high adventure of new discoveries, I worry that poesy is actual displacing information here and I object to that.

Quote from JohnyFive

I provided exact list of meterials that are working but it is uneasy to obtain them for normal people.

So my next target will be to use materials that can be bought with no issue and I already tested Vaping Wire Ni-200 from EBay and it is working well too.

I think that this is a very good move!

Your immediate task is to explain why the MagicSound replication attempt showed none of the effects you claimed should be large and easy to achieve. You need to resolve this before moving on.

Quote from magicsound

OK, It's running. The GMC is facing up and moved away from the lead cave, and added a paper cover over it to mitigate dust settling on the bare mica diaphragm. I'm logging only the GMC counts and my He3 Neutron detector. I'll leave it running for two full days and post the data when done.

What were the results from this run?

So, supposing that Rossi has no genuine IP, what is he up to? Do you think that this will be just another turn on the merry-go-round and he will announce next year yet another advance in the technology that necessitates a delay in marketing ... or does he have some way to make money by selling heat/power at a 20% discount? Maybe he will be accessing carbon credits or some other type of subsidy?

bang99 I am surprised to see the description of his ecat still up on Rossi's site given the cease and desist order the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (FBPE) issued him last summer. The material that you have copied and posted actually formed part of the evidence the FBPE used to find that Rossi was practicing engineering without a license.

Quote from bang99

IMHO on Rossis's blog, the (non-Rossi) messages do not appear in "realtime", they are put on queue, sorted out by AR, made online (or get deleted) and then are answered.

I had the same thought. That is why I displayed Frank Acland's message times. We know that Frank is a real person. If you look at his posts their pattern does not shift when Rossi travels to Europe. I conclude that the timestamps of messages from real people are assigned when the system receives them and have not, so far, been under Rossi's control. Of course anything could happen in the future.

Quote from Alan Smith

No. It's better than that. I have independent confirmation

It is my personal opinion that Rossi's medical problems are probably real -- I don't see the usefulness to Rossi of his creating a fake surgical episode last summer. But it is the corrosive nature of lying that you can't trust a liar on anything. So I note that confirmation is needed.

Unless your confirmation is from someone you trust who actually saw Rossi on the surgical ward of the hospital then it is inadequate. Such is the sad consequence of a history of lying and deception.

Quote from zorud

It would be interesting to watch what ROssi's reaction will be if he is reading this (I am sure!) and how the pattern will look until / after his next big demo on Jan, 31st, 2019.

It may already have happened. The Convinced have been posting pretty regularly at the rate of about twice per week since the Nov 2017 demo. But, following an online discussion between myself and Shane D on this subject on Oct 12 (Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion) they suddenly stopped.

There were 8 of them in September but only 1 in October. This was an October 11 post from "Gale" which was copied the next day here on LENR Forum and subsequently kicked off the discussion. Since then has been only a single one (from Mary Coore on Nov 2) .

Quote from Alan Smith

Bruce__H Rossi was in Europe for surgery starting June sometime. But I think you should get out a little more.

So far the surgery is just Rossi says. He claims it was in the 3rd week of July.