So IH gets the condos back?
andrea.s
Member
- Male
- Member since Oct 12th 2014
- Last Activity:
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.
-
Okay Argon - get Rossi to send a letter to Tom Darden offering to buy back his license and the 1MW unit. $11.5M plus reasonable contract separation terms, mutual indemnifications and confidentiality agreements. He'll need to move quickly as the bombers are fueled and ready.
23 June 2016
-
So it was indeed Dewey who in June 2016 would have still settled if money were to be given back, or maybe it was merely provocation.
-
Unexpected commonalities
And there are people who believe the world is flat. What is your point?
There is (e.g.) even a Flat Earth society....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies
-
I stopped looking for links and references once someone acknowledged they had seen Rossi's claim. Even Jed said above, "No one disputes that." Except apparently Dewey.
I did find a reference to Rossi willing to give back the money. Wouldn't it have been so much nobler than giving it to lawyers?
-
-
"I think....." Wow !
Without a complete calculus and a paper (or at least a web page written at that time ()) illustrating what they would done your affirmation is empty and without any value.
We don't know even if it has any true foundation or not.
I have followed the work of MFMP and never found such a positive COP without fuel !
A google search confirms my ideas:
https://www.google.nl/search?q=MFMP+COP+3
Also your big jump is in fact not so big.
First you have to write the temperatures in Kelvin so sum 273.16 to both
Then ignoring the Boltzman constant that is present in both cases we have a ratio of emitted energy density 0.45*(1797.16)^4 / (0.95*(1273.16)^4) = 1,8
So emitted energy is almost linear as function of emissivity. If following the ill based and invalid reasoning of the Lugano detractors divide the obtained 3.6 COP by 1.8 we obtain still a COP of 2.
This means that even following the most ill based and critics ( MFMP was not using pure Allumina ! and the "spectral emissivity" argument is simply out of any reality ) the Lugano reactor was working !
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.
-
Nobody ever did the math for emissive power calculations, but they had 1524 C (the maximum temperature the Optris will display is 1524.7 C, so it might even have been "hotter") by switching to 0.45 emissivity, a big jump from around 1000 C at 0.95. Power in of course was constant.
I did. COP was 4.3 .
-
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.
-
I knew this question was coming !
Indeed I am making strong claims, however I decided already some time ago that I will not discuss the method here, at least not at this moment.
You may blame for that but the problem is that discussions here tend to end up in pro or contra Rossi stances and I intend not to spend my time on those.
Not answering posts would put me in the same category as the Lugano testers which did not give answers on the issues with respect to their report.
But you made the correct conclusion that as a part of the solution you need to have the correct graph of IR band emissivity vs temperature. The question is how to get such graph from literature data and where to find that data.
It can be done and I am sure seeing your technical background that if you spent some time on it you will find the answer.
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 find it easier to believe that Xenu dropped 20 million souls on a Hawaiian volcano than that Rossi heated his factory for a year with an Ecat...
Why? He did, though with 6 times less heat than claimed.
-
[...] 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.
-
Exactly!
Well, some of the skeptics here have no jury to impress. So don't lay your sarcasm over me if I say: go MFMP! if there is a miracle in BRNO unveil it for us!
-
@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.
-
Yes interesting question, how have the people been tricked (so easy) by this false "genius"? (The hoax was easy to reveal)
Gullible people, ignorance or what?
Rossiele
[...]
Packing your bags for your next batch of dupes yet?
Dupes, according to Dewey's authoritative opinion
-
A friendly advice: mind your apostrophes as there are people in this forum who get nervous over those! 😀😀😀
-
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 ."
-
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.