Shane don't fall into this trap. Instructions are crystal clear that a calibration at temperature is necessary. There really is no serious debate over this. The authors chose a convoluted way out of this lack of calibrated reference but failed to understand the band limitation of their instrument. This makes the test meaningless.
andrea.s
Member
- Male
- Member since Oct 12th 2014
- Last Activity:
Posts by andrea.s
-
-
-
This is also quite amusing.
A guy named Jed forgets his own name and signs as Mark. Oh my.Of course it could be trolls. But normally you find the troll bragging on some other blog for his achievement and happy like a child. This was often the case on Ecatnews.com .
"Jed
October 9, 2016 at 2:32 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
I totally approve your answer to Mark Leiber.
Godspeed,
Mark" -
I also like "brian'.
A very British name for such Itanglish writing skills.
It isn't nice of him to tempt AR to betray his principles of non-interference with the Profs' work.Here is the full text (could have put a link but Mr. Lomax would have pasted it anyway. It does help in making one's posts nicely long).
brian
October 8, 2016 at 7:33 AM
Mr Andrea Rossi,
I like very much the comment of Rainer Rander: do you know who is he ? There are rumors is a physicist of CERN.
Cheers,
BrianAndrea Rossi
October 8, 2016 at 7:40 AM
Brian:
I do not know who this guy is and I prefer not to participate to comments regarding measurements made by an independent third party.
Warm Regards,
A.R. -
-
I think Randombit0 knows the difference by now. But it is important to her to argue and deny to keep up the morale of Rossi supporters.
People are (obviously) for the most part uneducated in physics, and supporters with an education often don't bother to check the details. Supporters, educated or not, will be satisfied with repeating or paraphrasing Rossi's words. Laymen including jury members will choose the argument of the side that looks nicer. So THH you don't stand a chance (I think I saw a couple photos of an ex Forum member that is allegedly you). Now when in Court you won't be there nor Randombit0 's charming avatar. But Rossi has fascinated so many people that he will likely charm the jury members as well. -
Rossi said the customer site is 3m tall: a tunnel 3m tall, 3m wide, and 20m long. This fits the picture without imagining the partition to extend to the building's ceiling. And there should be an intermediate ceiling, otherwise the height wouldn't be 3m and would coincide with the building. A nice place to work in, especially considering it apparently has no windows.
And lots of storage room on the top. The black object is most likely a huge metal sponge ready for shipment.
-
Quote from andrea.s: “Ascoli, if I may: are you sure Jed fits as the covert agent in your DoD/ecat spy story?”
You might not. You shouldn't attribute to me something I didn't say. There is a lot of your imagination in your question. If you want to…Agreed. I stretched that a bit. Sorry for that.
What is given here does not at all establish what Ascoli45 claimed.
[...]
Against this claim by Ascoli45 we have statementsCareful Ascoli65, Abd is trying to either diminish or make you appear older.
-
forget Lugano, Revisit Levi (March 2013 run)
This thread should use this Italian pop song of the 70s, "Lugano addio", as a soundtrack.
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.There are some analyses of this test. TC did a bit, and andrea s did some more.
Well yes I argued against the current waveforms, which look like I1 clamp was reversed.
And as said several times. reverting a clamp will give an apparent power gain, variable with the triac conduction angle.
This is mentioned at the end of my note of Nov 2014 addressing both TPR2 aka Lugano and TPR1.
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123571297_1.pdf
If anybody wishes to play with conduction angles and apparent COP, here is a downloadable selfmade spreadsheet. It says "only change fields in green" but feel free to mess with the file.
https://drive.google.com/file/…jZXEwUjA/view?usp=sharingI also argued against the alleged "selfsustained mode" in a discussion here with Jack Cole. We both simulated the temperature profiles by just accounting for thermal inertia.
The Playground -
Ascoli, if I may: are you sure Jed fits as the covert agent in your DoD/ecat spy story? Wouldn't he rather be the "useful idiot"? (Sorry Jed, just a figure of speech).
The same applies to the Bologna professors, and later to the Uppsala professors. You certainly don't think the DoD can bribe University professors abroad.
As to the "historical importance" of UniBo presence at the demo: I am not impressed by the fact that a handful of physicists accepted an invitation out of curiosity or deference to their ex Dean of Faculty. The fact that there was no public stand of the Department against Rossi's endorsement by Focardi and Levi may be embarassing to you if you graduated from UniBo. But it may be a choice of low profile, since -after all- UniBo invested close to nothing in the affair. And Levi's time was rewarded with research grants for pinball-related theses. -
Ascoli you are cryptic. perhaps I understand people less than I understand technical reports. but I will take your reply as a yes to my second example.
Edit: except that I should replace the word scams with myths. use of euphemisms is highly recommended with all these lawsuits around.
-
If you wish to know whether the DoD benefited from the Ecat affair, I don't know. This is a good question to be submitted to the Secretary of Defense at the next briefing to the US House Committee on Armed Service to be held on September 22.Ascoli, you insist so much on this involvement that you must have an opinion.
I made an example already, which many LENR enthusiasts like (in short: cold fusion is real and secreted by DoD, and Rossi is used to misdirect).
Other possibilities: free energy scams - Rossi included - are part of a counterinformation strategy of the DoD, in parallel to suspect declarations of huge tight oil reserves, to influence oil prices and/or confuse the "enemy". How is that? At least you should appreciate my efforts to think twisted. Not a very successful contribution from the Ecat though. Only ECW and a few here still hope.
-
-
That's absurd. I got the papers the same time everyone else did. I have never met him or…So Jed had no privileged access to the data. I have nothing to object.
@Ascoli why would the DoD benefit from encouraging and backing a scammer? Do you mean the DoD secretly knows all about Cold fusion, perhaps Pd-D, and drove the show from behind the scenes to misdirect others? Intriguing plot but too cool to be true in my view. But good for a movie, Daniel Craig could play a fascinating Rossi.
-
Andrea, what do you mean with "Jed fell for it"? Do you mean, that he believed in the Ecat results?You should leave apart for a while the wires of the hotcat and look with more attention to the upstream facts happened in 2011, and may be even before, to understand this saga and the possible role of its protagonists. And if you do that, you will see that JR looks much more like a protagonist rather than a simple very special commenter.
Have you understood the historical importance of the demo held in Bologna, on January 14, 2011, at the presence of a dozen of members (or ex-members) of the local Department of Physics? They took publicly the responsibility to measure the possible excess heat produced by a presumed revolutionary device and to properly report it to the public opinion.
Do you think it is normal that all the main calorimetric data of that test has been communicated within hours to someone at the other side of the ocean (1)? Who did establish the wrong data reported by Levi in his calorimetric report? It's really hard to believe that JR was not aware since the beginning that those data were wrong.
Ascoli I tend to think simple.
Rossi started working on trying to reproduce patents on CF. Focardi was intrigued and hungry for vindication over his research efforts, but in his late years was probably unable to check accuracy of the setups. He trusted Rossi.
Levi worked with Focardi and hoped for recognition as one of the guys who found the new fire.
Jed was and is the recognized LENR librarian, obviously welcoming extraordinary results in cold fusion, and useful in their quick diffusion whereas mainstream science journals would be skeptical and slow. Jed is not a scientist, and of course was positively biased.So it is straightforward why Levi released the news of extraordinary results to Jed even before consulting his colleagues in Bologna. Many of his colleagues would be criticizing and demanding, and an endorsement coming from overseas would help in rejecting objections.
Now the question is, were the alleged mistakes intentional, and if so who are the intentional deceivers?
I think this is a mix of
1.initial delusion due to flawed measurements, followed by
2. the desperate attempt to reproduce results, only happening at times (when the flaws were reproduced), and
3. the setting up of demos (to state a priority of invention and to raise funding) where failure was not an option and leading to "backup strategies" so to speak.Even the 1 MW plant makes sense for a deluded inventor who thinks his reactors work "at times" but in an uncontrolled manner. If the COP obtained is 200 once every twenty failed runs, one may think that the one good test is flawed, or one may cherry-pick the good result and attribute the failures to the random nature of the phenomenon. Without a grasp on the phenomenon, and relying on statistics, one may assemble 100 reactors in series and parallel and hope to get an average COP of 10.
Then if you have had success with backup strategies for three times, you may be tempted to try again. And the obsession for success once you have invested your life in a delusion may lead to weird behaviours.
-
You said that the rods temperature profile matches a 2.9kW consumption. How would the profile change if consumption were 900W and additional 2kW excess heat were originating from the reactor core? Will you post a comparison?
-
You still have not checked the Lugano setup. There was never a full three phase set up, as one phase was reserved for the "superwave" induction current.
Using a common ground (prerequisite) this would have lead to a great mess.....Quote from andrea.s: “your comment on 3 phase input is pure fantasy. And "superwave" is a laughable term:”
Did You ever follow LENR? On p.6 Fig.5 You can see the frequency decomposition. They posted it just for Your fun...
Wyttenbach you had said something intelligent on the rods heat transfer, now you are are instead back to a discouraging standard.
Figure 5 is called a chopped AC. It is one of the industry standard ways to efficiently control power on a resistive load, by controlling the AC duty cycle via thyristor switches.
You are free to think that the narrow current peaks also have the function of triggering LENR.
But phases are not "reserved", ask your electricIan. The I3 current peaks you see in fig.5 on each half period flow from V1 to V3 and V2 to V3, or viceversa.
I1 and I2 will look exactly the same though shifted in time by one sixth and one third of a period.The plot posted for my fun is very telling because it reveals a 3kW electrical input.
Of course you can believe that it is not a plot related to the active run. But then what is it? Aren't you curious to know?
-
@Mary
@Ascoli
you guys can be really nasty. Jed fell for it. so what. We all did, for a time ranging from hours to years, though many of us with big "caution" disclaimers.
Most skeptics writing here are like ex-smokers complaining for the smoke and bashing smokers for their unhealthy habits.your comment on 3 phase input is pure fantasy. And "superwave" is a laughable term: does Rossi superimpose RF on the AC supply? OK, maybe, so what? You don't mean he feeds kIlowatts of RF outside the wattmeter's frequency range, do you?
-
In a balanced 3-phase condition the effect of reverting a clamp is to underestimate power by a factor 3 whatever the triac conduction angle.
So the mistake could happen when disconnecting for fueling and reconnecting.It is different in the TPR1 setup where one of three-phase inputs is open. In that case the "apparent COP" given by a probe reversal varies with the conduction angle. I found that the apparent power gain was 1 or less at low regimes (dummy run) and could be adjusted to 2.7 or more with larger conduction angles representative of the experiment.
-
I don't buy that... Parkhomov needs to substantiate his own results before he is used to substantiate Rossi's.