Posts by andrea.s

    Did you note that the March test was single-phase?

    The March test was done with a three-phase supply but a single-phase load.

    With such a setup, an inverted clamp results both in matching the pictures in the appendix (where the currents I1 and I2 are suspiciously in phase instead of being out of phase) , and in underestimating the input power by an amount variable with the TRIAC setting.

    This is more subtle than in the plain three-phase arrangement of Lugano where the misplaced clamp can only account for a COP of 3.

    In the March test , when increasing the duty cycle one can get any apparent COP, for example the 5.6 claimed for the "HT1" device. At low regimes, the apparent COP decreases to 1 or less, which is good for making a low power calibration run credible.

    I have made available a while ago a spreadsheet for anybody interested to play with.


    [ETA: spreadsheet updated to correct an error spotted by @LDM]

    https://drive.google.com/open?…ubncFIhCFaNF83OUgzUDcwenM


    Just change the triac phase setting and you can get the (apparent) COP you like best.



    [ETA: updated spreadsheet screenshots. Apparent COP goes from 0.8 to 5.6 by increasing the conduction interval from 1/5 to 2/3 of a time period]



    Ele? You classify him/her as a normal observer of this saga. I had a different impression. He/she has such a familiar style, with typical Itanglish misspellings and use of false-friend literary translations. Remember when he/she stood for Florida as the state of KSC against someone's criticism? Can you think of anybody else who would do that? Oh yes, perhaps SSC...

    [...]

    Rossi has nothing of any "intellectual property" value (same with IH). An issued patent in ITALY (!), yea that's really valuable), and hoards of patent applications that are not worth the paper they're written on--they mean nothing unless/until granted, and judging from his track record of patents, experiments, data and physics, the ONLY ones that will be issued are in Italy (likely by leaving a milk-jar containing a pittance of his ill-gotten gains on the stoop of the an Italian bureaucrat), well, maybe also in Timbuktu, Fiji etc. [...]




    I suppose Rossi doesn't help in dissipating prejudice and stereotypes.

    And we Italians have a habit of self-deprecating ourselves which serves us right.

    Rossi's sale of his fabulous IP in the US closely recalls the sale of the Trevi Fountain in Rome to a rich American tourist in a famous* movie of the early sixties.

    (* in Italy, Fiji and Timbouctu)




    The input power X1/3 was debunked, in my opinion (and yes, I did follow all of the twists and turns of that debate back in the day).

    How was this debunked?

    The Lugano result indeed does not need an input power mismeasurement, given the favorable errors achievable with a wrong emissivity setting.

    But there still is the unexplained 6:1 ratio of "Joule heating" between experiment and dummy run, versus a 2:1 ratio of declared input AC powers: for this a reversed clamp is an easier explanation than a three-fold drop in resistance, and compatible with the waveform in the infamous figure 5.

    The Lugano report mentions the initial attempt to use thermocouples, soon removed due to the alleged unreliable contact to the ridged reactor body: in this initial phase a reversed clamp would come handy. Then when relying on IR camera only for the long-term test, such a gross mistake can be corrected, replaced by a (self)deceiving emissivity setting.



    [...]. In that case we have unknown input power as well as arbitrarily (could be 10s or even 100s of times) mismeasured output power. I still think my spiky waveform mismeasurement, which does the same thing, is cleverer.


    You have to hand it to the guy for bare-faced chutzpah. Were the deceptions he practices not so loathsome you'd admire him.

    I think your original narrative still holds. What was missing was a high enough voltage to initiate an arc across 1.5 cm in some medium within the microtube. I wish I had posted the suggestion of a transformer prior to publication of this illuminating email exchange between AR and Bass. But your idea of computing power as the product of average voltage and average current is an excellent COP generator, where COP is the inverse of the duty cycle. Then if one is not satisfied, IR cameras are there to help.

    andrea.s

    Can you upload it here?

    I guess it is easiest to connect to


    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/


    They intend to have an English version some time soon.


    There are many aspects that make the Rapporto41 unsatisfactory, and the aura of mistery undeserved.


    Little room for conspiracy theories if Rubbia (Nobel prize leading ENEA at the time) redirected the research, after being the one who promoted it.


    The primary result of the report is the detection of 4He allegedly resulting from the reaction. But there is no way the spectrometer could distinguish this from De2 nor can the authors prove that De2 was eliminated totally by the getters. Quite the contrary, as one of the calibration plots shows traces of De2 and H in spite of a plot scale five orders of magnitude larger than the later one where the peak attributed to 4He (but likely De2) is found.

    Maryyugo wrote:

    "Why not simply generate electricity with any simple thermoelectric converter near the hot end and use its output to furnish a few milliwatts to drive the reactor? "


    MY, do you have evidence that this has not been done? [...] Maybe this is being done as we speak.

    Rossi has often claimed to have proven infinite COP or the so called "self sustain mode" with his demos of the early ecat. Also, an ill founded attempt was made by Levi & co to explain in TPR1 that the "off" portions of the time period were proof of "heat after death" of the hotcat. The problem so far is that this "proof" of output energy with zero input energy was systematically compatible with the thermal inertia of the devices.


    Rossi will certainly do something similar with the quark x. So keep an eye on the size of the feedback and control box when he does. And think whether it may have enough energy storage capability to provide the output energy that will be recorded during the demo after unplugging.

    As I noted, the American Bar Association experts disagree with you. Who do you think knows more about jurisprudence?

    Context does help, but still to a non-native English speaker an expert of the American Bar Association sounds like someone familiar with alcoholic beverages more than law. In Italy an American bar is a classy cocktail bar as one may find in five star hotels. Admittedly it has nothing American, like Italian dressing has nothing Italian nor a French kiss anything French about it...

    [...]

    the argument of emissivity factors cancelling is true and your is disinformation.

    Is not a coincidence that after a long time of silence you came out now with that.

    I was silent because I was and am a bit bored, so I keep an eye but feel less involved. When I found fatal flaws years ago in Rossi's demos and supporting articles by Levi et al I felt it necessary to intervene. Now the sItuation is clear even to LENR enthusiasts. Oh, I don't remember seeing your nickname back when I most posted in this Forum: maybe it is a new nick for an old participant in this saga. I must say it does intrigue me when I recognize English mistakes common among Italians in posts here, so maybe this is what motivated me to write again.

    Hi. I haven't been around for a while.

    The argument by ele of emissivity inputs canceling out has been dismissed a thousand times.

    As Magicsound states, total emissivity is fine to be used to compute power radiated once you know the temperature. But it cannot be used as an input to the narrowband infrared sensor, which needs the emissivity in its sensing range: (for the thousandth time) this was shown live by MFMP to be much higher (0.95 or so) in agreement with known data of spectral emissivity of alumina in the IR band. Use of the Lugano settings was shown to overestimate temperature by more than 500°C.