Posts by andrea.s

    [...]

    AndreaS. do not insult USA Juridical System. Is much better and faster then Italian one. In Italy a trial like that one would take about 20 years and parts that are weaker are never protected. You are not understanding the fact on my opinion. And in that case there was no obvious conclusion.


    You sound familiar with the Italian judicial system. I agree it's no better.


    But sincerely, congratulations. Perfect strategy. La miglior difesa è l'attacco.


    And although a fair conclusion would have been Rossi giving back most of the money (not all - he has spent time and money in genuinely trying to make a miracle happen, at least in the spare time left from his "design of experiment" activity), I have no sympathy for IH. So be it if they lost 11M plus whatever (I said my guess already).

    I doubt that a last-second ethical decision was the spark for the settlement.


    The spark was likely judge Altonaga's deference in addressing the Plaintiff as Dr. Rossi. This scared the s*** out of IH who decided they would never win a countersuit. My guess is they offered to pay Rossi's lawyer fees and that was it.


    In the movie that will be released based on this story, such fees will be 50%/50% shared with Rossi by prior agreement.

    Rossi's lawsuit was another masterpiece.

    Three and a half more millions and the guarantee that IH will never even think of getting their condos back.

    But it's all fiction.

    I think the test befoet al., was better. They calibrated coy and used a thermocouple to confirm the IR readings. As far as I can tell that was a positive result. I cannot explain it, but it looked positive to me.


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf



    They never explained the reversed phase in the appendix plots. Without a good explanation those waveforms are a fairly solid proof of a reversed clamp, that well explains the apparent COP.



    Actually they explained the method well. The part that computes radiated power works. The part where they resort to literature data to set the camera is wrong.

    The temperature error that MFMP got when using 0.45 emissivity leads to a COP of 4.3 for their dummy. See my previous post.

    From the report, " MFMP obtained a (false) reading of 1524°C versus a 874°C thermocouple reading".


    It is mind boggling that scientists could be off by more than 500degreesC in a measurement of heat. And the odd thing is that this "reality distortion field" seems to apply to when Rossi is involved. No one thought to bring a simple thermometer?


    Exactly, Kev.

    Actually they did (a thermocouple) but didn't trust the (low) reading because of the rigged surface, and resorted to uncalibrated optical thermography alone.


    MFMP simply tied the thermocouples with iron wire, it was easy and the reading was very well in line with a pyrometer. My computation using this temperature reading confirmed a COP of 0.9 to 1.0 for MFMP's dummy (close enough to the theoretical 1) using the same method as Lugano (except the wrong camera setting of course!).


    Mind boggling yes, and the only explanation is confirmation bias if you don't invoke outright fraud.



    Actually page I-14 (27 in the PDF) is the best graph of band emissivity at temperature. IR emissivity is seen to be fairly high at 1300K as confirmed in MFMP's video.


    Another interesting read is page I-21 (34 of the PDF) which shows how dispersed the total emissivity data are, and shows how optimistic the error computation is in the Lugano paper, (on top of the conceptual mistake of using total emissivity for the IR camera setting). The iterative search for a temperature-emissivity pair that the Lugano authors describe is done with reference to the best fit curve. But data points are at least +/-20% dispersed around this best fit.


    This is a bit funny LDM. Why not submit your work to a peer review, and there is no better place than this, that welcomes any viewpoint. Of course you are free to do as you please, but critiques will not be pro Rossi or pro IH. They will be pro or contra your method and its application. Otherwise your claims remain empty.

    [...] I would prefer you share negative results, which are as important as positive results.


    He actually did, although forced by the circumstances. If you measure a heater a hundred times you may well make a mistake a couple of times and get COP once 0.5 and once 2.0. I recommend not to get excited for the cop=2 since it is no more miracle than 0.5 (where did the energy go?), and be cautious in justifying the 98 nulls as "lack of repeatibility": 98/100 is pretty good actually.

    Now, one may have experienced instead excess heat ten times in a row.. maybe this is closer to what me356 experienced given his self-assuredness. Even then, were the ten times tested with more than one method? I fear not. The second method was likely applied last week and we all saw the results.


    I respect this person's dedication but he really should challenge his previous results and test methods before falling into the spiral of COP optimization, which often coincides with maximizng a systematic error.

    @DW

    Interesting to see your interest in this test. Makes one think of the genuine will to get results that must have motivated you at the beginning of the Rossi/IH honeymoon. And it is frankly surprising that you don't dismiss this Rossi-inspired researcher as another deluded amateur, after what you have experienced.