Posts by andrea.s

    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.


    Another significant sentence (and hopefully unambiguous) in the conclusions is:

    "Use of total emissivity data from literature as suggested by the Lugano report in setting the Optris camera was shown by MFMP to largely

    overestimate the temperature. When emissivity of alumina was set to 0.45 i.e. close to the 0.4 figure used in the Lugano report based on

    literature data, MFMP obtained a (false) reading of 1524°C versus a 874°C thermocouple reading : with this temperature, apparent COP at

    895W input diverges to 4.32 ."





    LDM


    I am sure you are in good faith. But the sentence that follows in my report is :


    "Instead, if the Lugano computation method is applied with use of total emissivity data drawn from literature as in the Lugano report,

    but relying on thermocouple temperature reading for calibrating the Optris thermal camera (not on total emissivity data, as the camera only senses a portion of the spectrum), results for COP are in the range 0.91 to 0.97, which is in line with expectations (conservative and within 10% error)."



    I think it is clear: the method of Lugano is ok except for the emissivity setting on the Optris camera. But maybe I need to edit the report for better clarity, as I must say at least another person misinterpreted my conclusions already.





    LDM you have a way of twisting conclusions.

    I appreciated your checking my numbers on the Ferrara report aka TPR1, but you ended up cherry picking a case favorable for Rossi & co and didn't check further (or chose not to comment further).


    Again on the MFMP replica of the Lugano dogbone, what I did is check whether the calorimetry based on temperature measurements used by Levi and co worked. The result was: yes, if the temperature is right the MFMP dummy is computed to have a COP below and within 10% of 1.

    Of course if the temperature is instead wildly overestimated by using the wrong emissivity (total emissivity in lieu of IR band emissivity, incidentally quite high for Alumina) the apparent COP (of a dummy!) will skyrocket.

    How can this suggest a mistake by MFMP, who cross checked thermocouples and pyrometer readings to set the emissivity, rather than a mistake by Levi, who relied on a theoretical (and theoretically flawed) uncalibrated emissivity setting?