Posts by THHuxley

Quote from Jed

I disagree. The first Levi report was real evidence. It was technical, not meta-evidence. See:

lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

Perhaps it was wrong, but it is not meta-evidence.

I agree that many people try to rely on meta-evidence, such as whether Rossi would try to fake a test, or whether I.H. is actually engaged in a plot to suppress cold fusion. Meta-evidence in this case means trying to determine the results of an experiment by looking a personalities and motivations rather than temperatures and flow rates.

Display More

I agree that this report is the best real evidence you can find. I disagree that it supports rossi: but for reasons which need some space. I'm going to give a 10 line summary here.

The report details two distinct experiments, and we must therefore consider each one separately. They measure different equipment, and show very different results.

Part 1

The issue here is simply lack of credible external scrutiny. Levi clearly led this test, with only Foschi and Rossi otherwise present. Levi has demosntrated on a number of occasions both before this and after it that his experimental reliability, when reporting on Rossi experiments, is very low. You do not have to impute any sinister motive, nor would i wish to, but for whatever reason he has showed a number of severe errors that persist when they should not. We could go into details.

So the issue here is that the people conducting the test cannot be trusted.

Part 2

The issue here is subtle and to do with the assumptions made about heater switching. Unlike the previous test in this case all of the COP comes from the assumption that the heater switches on and off when it appears to do so. However the electrical circuit is complex, it could easily result in the same heater power in the two modes (again more detail would be needed to go into this) and there is no independent check. Thus the control case has heater always on, and the active case has heater always switching. All that is needed to explain the results is for, through some mistake, the switching heater not to switch!

There is also meta-evidence here. Why, for the second better observed test, does the performance go down by a factor of 3? Why not stick with the initial higher performance device?

So: yes there is evidence. But this is strongly tainted, as above. Therefore it does not support Rossi's claims.

Since this is a thread for reiterating arguments

There has never been any real evidence to support Rossi. Equally (and obviously) there can never be any real evidence to prove he does not have what he claims.

So what has been paraded - both for and against - is meta-evidence. The meta-evidence for has never - looked at in the round - been good, but now looks very bad.

Those who think Rossi has something may rely on what they think of as "real" evidence from the many amateur replication attempts. Me356 has particularly caught the imagination. If you believe his calorimetry is correct then he will win a Nobel Prize and/or become very rich. Let us hope. But history teaches us not to do this. And I have questioned his interpretations of data, when he was here making claims, and received no answer. That is, I proposed a workable (without further checking) mundane reason for behaviour he claimed must signal large excess heat. That gives me no reason to expect his judgement to be correct on this matter. My benchmark for reliability is if a claimant can engage with specific informed technical criticism: in which case the rights and wrongs can be more reliably determined by looking at the two sides.

Me356 has the great advantage over Rossi that he does not appear to be a flaky self-publicist with an eye for crowd approval. So why anyone should ever have accepted Rossi's claims as likely baffles me. But now the contrary meta-evidence is very very strong. There never will be contrary real evidence - you can't prove a negative. Rossi has already admitted to faking negative test results and whether that was a lie or not he can always spin some story which keeps his followers hopeful, if they are still with him now.

Quote from Jed

There have been reasons to think that Rossi had something of value. As I pointed out before, other people tested his devices with their own instruments, when he was not there. They were in the U.S. and he was in Italy during the entire test. They got positive results in the kilowatt range.

Do you have specifics for this? I'm not aware of any of the Rossi tests that provide credible reasons of this type - because all have crucial objective defects in personel or methodology or (usually) both. Perhaps you could say a bit more about this?

Quote from ele

Mary ..... how we can trust you ? Are you telling always the truth ? Your real name is George isn't it ?

That is a despicable non-sequitur. What does the real identity of anyone posting under an alias here have to do with whether they always tell the truth?

Regards, THH

Quote

In addition, we have another independent confirmations of ECat technology validity, at least at the principal level : Lugano and Parkhomov reports and few others, less conclusive ones.

How does the Lugano data provide any sort of validation of Rossi technology?

Its like the meme that Apollo moon landings were faked. Ideas, however unsound, stay in the internet undergrowth to bring forth loathsome fruiting bodies at some future date when the climate is right.

Quote

Without it he wouldn't attack the IH just the same day, when IH delayed its payment.

We now have ample evidence that relations between IH and Rossi had deteriorated long before then, so that does not run. Rossi would have known what IH thought of his "test".

Quote

The problem with Rossi is exactly this!We don't know whether he has something. He never showed it clearly. Each time there were some flaws.

It is only a problem with Rossi if you reckon extraordinary claims from an unconvincing character without evidence are likely to be real. Otherwise its a problem for Rossi.

Quote from Shane

Thanks Abd, as always. Well I just read 77, and could only get through about half. Will read the rest tomorrow. Lots going on right now. Weird defense strategy on the part of Johnson, Fabiani and Bass. Well, maybe not so weird if you have no defense I guess.Simply put, they are trying to distance themselves from Rossi, and in particular that July 2014 meeting in NC where Rossi/Johnson said some things that are damning to their defense. They even admit in the very first sentence that they will not address that particular meeting. That tells you something. Sharp judge, and magistrate, so doubtful they will miss the significance.Then the third party defendants try and describe, however superficially, that Doral was the GPT. I almost get the impression they are trying to keep that in play as an option...just in case Rossi wins this thing, while they are poising to jump ship. Guess the ever so slight possibility of a big payday still weighs heavily on their minds, along with their lawyers? Waste of time IMO, but never hurts to try and have it both ways.After Johnson, Fabiani, Bass exhaust all legally reasonable options, and the dire consequences of their actions hits home, I suspect some, or all 3, will turn on Rossi to save themselves.

Shane I think you are spot on here. The matter of their respective culpability is fascinating, and not one that can be easily resolved from the outside, though guessing is cheap. Rossi has (do we believe?) his funding from elsewhere so I guess will survive this debacle. It will be a very long time (probably never) before there is any evidence of his culpabilities strong enough to dislodge the pro-Rossi memes floating around - and that is all he needs, a meme or two...

Quote

You wrote: "There is no evidence anywhere of "IH service" for anyone writing on the blogs. I'll set aside Dewey Weaver, where he is actually an investor, not someone paid to write on blogs! Blog commentary is of practically no benefit to Industrial Heat, they would be crazy to pay for it, and they aren't crazy. There is, however, someone who has, in the past, benefited from blog postings. Who would that be? If someone is creating FUD, who would have a motive, and particularly a financial one? It's not rocket science to guess!".So, if you fill hundreds of forum pages with your ideas against Rossi, we should think that you are just a free-thinker and a verbose writer, whereas if a person leaves just one positive/partisan comment on Rossi blog he certainly is a paid puppet? Come on, be more impartial!And to Jed you wrote: "Just because you are not paid to create FUD doesn't mean that someone else isn't."

This meme that people are paid to post on blogs is unhelpful, and I've never believed it on either side. The idea that Rossi posts with aliasses on his own blog - well I think that is pretty well proven, and his privilege if a bit weird, but I doubt he pays himself. Anything else? Impossible to disprove, but it seems unlikely, and anyway it is not relevant. It makes no difference to me whether posts here are paid or not: I judge on quality not motive. That is mainly because I like to work things out myself and don't put trust in anyone else except that which is earnt. Even then we all make mistakes, and I don't forget that.

Unless you view these matters (of whether a given revolutionary technological device works or not) as being a reality tv show where the winner will be the one with the best back-story, the audience here really does not matter much. There are two exceptions:

• Rossi has always viewed PR as supremely important. This comes from the way he spends so much time grooming his internet audience, and the way that he talks of the Dorral customer episode as a "magnificence" of more effect than tests on IH premises. Of more PR effect perhaps, but less use if you are trying to determine, for yourself or serious investors, what works.
• IH also have a strong interest in their LENR reputation amongst serious scientists and there is some (not I think much) overlap with the various blogs (this, ECW, MFMP, and weird ones like ego-out). I can however understand Dewey, for purely personal reasons, being very very pissed off at the slanderous accusations thrown at his friends, so much at variance with what he believes the truth. And Dewey (like quite a few others here) quite enjoys weighing in and fighting the good cause.

That is the point. We are here because we enjoy it. Those who are doing experiments are also here because they enjoy it (and the ones seriously doing experiments with real money much less likely to be reporting results here). There is no shame in that, far from it, but it is grandiose to think that somehow opinion here matters to the wider world.

[OK - Alan is here (in part) because he hopes to make money selling lab equipment in a good cause - and many here hope for good to come from research into LENR - but that does not make opinion here of any import]

Thanks, Abd, for the work here and patience documenting exactly what anyone visiting ecat-world can see immediately.

But it is all FUD: lenr-forum is owned by IH, in bed with snakes, and this thread proves it.

Flow calorimetry is inherently better than open heat emitters tested for temperature, because it is difficult to control or even know all the effects that change effective thermal resistance, AND the thermal resistance is not a priori known.

You still use cal runs for the flow calorimetry to check everything is wrong - but you are one step ahead because you know what the cal result is supposed to be.

It is hands down a better method if practicable.

There are still errors: water flow mismeasurement, boiling, TC mis-siting. All easily avoided if you are not Rossi.

Quote

...here are (Dec 31 2015) no US$ 89 Million, so where should it come from?

From the very many investors with large pockets who would jump at the chance to get a slice of working e-cat technology. All IH would need to do is show them a working demo, or Rossi's test, if that was working and properly validated.

Umm...

What makes this saga psychologically compelling is that in spite (or because) of this ongoing circus (5 years now) Rossi has his band of ardent supporters, Frank Acland not least...

Quote

We generally expect that LENR heat will incerase with temperature.

Just to be a D.A. -

I agree we do expect this, on experimental grounds. Theoretically it is also what we would expect if LENR effects are artifactual, where the calorimetry artifacts scale roughly with deltaT.

Otherwise there is no obvious reason for this scaling, although of course it is easy to speculate on things that would imply this. Without the test of strong quantitative prediction such speculation has a wide range.

Quote

there is a close ( though not linear) correlation between temperature and power input.

Surely not?

In this case at even 800C radiation is the dominant dissipation route and that scales as T^4 (for a black body) and close to this for alumina since T^4 is much stronger than the total emissivity change with T. The ambient correction is pretty small.

So to 1st approx we have T ~ P^(1/4).

Quote from randombit0

Let us now demonstrate that your affirmation is false using the Reductio ad Absurdum, with simple words.

First we must suppose that the argument is true so that we have to use the BB emissivity for Alumina in the range of the Camera.
Then we repeat the reasoning we have done already:
Let us have two bodies a) and b) with same geometrical shape and with the same input power:
a) being a perfect Black body and
b) made of alumina
We let the two bodies reach the equilibrium and suppose that they are in vacuum ( at least 10^-4 to stop convection ) so that the only way they can emit energy is radiation. Because of this equilibrium condition the power output from the two bodies will be the same.
This lead to the conclusion that b) must have a much higher temperature then a) but because of our first hypothesis the Camera would measure a temperature almost equal. This is absurd because is contrary to energy conservation so we conclude that the first hypothesis is not correct.

Display More

It would be absurd, yes. But it relies on your faulty idea that radiation in the IR band depends only on input power and band emissivity - so that a and b (with the same input power) would have the same band radiation.

Whereas the rest of the world knows that radiation in the IR a band depends on temperature and band emissivity. In your case the radiation from b (at a higher equilibrium temperature) would therefore be higher. And the camera would correctly read the higher temperature.

Your repeated inability to correct this erroneous argument raises the question: is this some cognitive lack: or are you a troll pure and simple?

Quite sure that I will have to repeat all that to you again.

This is a great idea. The key thing is that it can help disambiguate excess power from calorimetry errors. Given that the reactor and its conditions are identical we should see the same levels of excess heat - if we see significantly lower that points to artifact. At the same levels, because input powers (with which artifacts scale) are lower, and with careful experiment design, that might be above likely artifact levels. Though you would if possible want at least a 4X increase in insulation for this happy situation given the current results are ~ 10%.

Quote

Finally the Optris issue (wrong emissivity) could be resolved with a support request by Optris.

No link to Optris data emissivity correction is wrong claim?

No link for "latest findings" MFMP says COP is 1.5 claim?

No disclosure of what Optris support said (verbatim, not your possibly misunderstood interpretation...)?

Hardly resolution. More like concealment. If as you say it does not matter, why are you so determined to claim erroneously you are certain this test had COP 2 (or now you change your mind and say, without substance, 1.5)?

Quote

Lugano did do a calibration at a relatively low temperature. At that temperature, band emissivity and total emissivity were close enough that their calibration confirmed their power calculation.

It was worse than that. At low temperatures they calibrated the "book emissivity" against TC measurements. They say in the report (it is buried, but there - bottom of p9 if my memory is correct which it may not be) that they "adjusted" the book curve to fit the experimental data. But they only did TC calibration at low temperatures!

They do not disclose how large was the error in book value had they not "adjusted" the curve, but it could have been pretty large, although much lower than at higher temperatures. (The actual procedure they did is unclear from their text: it is possible that they made only insignificant adjustments, as shown in Figure 7, in which case why make any? I suspect the lack of clarity here to be because on reflecting on the experimental data they discovered issues and then had to retrofit some additional analysis but did not fully rewrite the report - but I guess we will never know).

When you look into the details of their methodology it falls to bits in ways quite surprising: though superficially it is both badly conducted and badly motivated, little fudges like this, not fully disclosed, are from my POV even worse...

Quote

We therefore took the same emissivity trend found in the literature as reference; but, by applying emissivity reference dots along the rods, we were able to adapt that curve to this specific type of alumina, by directly measuring local emissivity in places close to the reference dots (Figure 7).

Quote from Abd

From the rate of change of temperature and the thermal mass, and chemical calibrations could be done. Generated anomalous power should be accurately measurable. This approaches Fleischmann-Pons calorimetry, which was precise to 0.1 mW, it's claimed. At the temperatures involved here, that is not possible, but precision could be maximized, and calibrations could then make it accurate.

It was I think Brian Ahearne? Albiston? (my memory is lousy) who said he was going to do such an experiment with a Lugano replication a long time ago. The idea is you heat the reactor up in an oven, and monitor temperature differences between the reactor and oven ambient. This would be a much more sensitive indication of any power emitted or absorbed than the current experiments which all have difficult to quantify errors. It would provide a clear indication without needing calibration except for that of the differential temperature measurement sensors,and would have much higher signal to noise ratio than other techniques.

I have since never heard anything of the results from this experiment.

Quote

@THH: Just one more try to make it understandable for a rocker chair scientist!

About the exponent: That was lost via cut & paste...Sorry I was in a hurry...

The adjusted Temperature for Lugano is calculated as following:

With Ecat T=1250C and wrong ε1 = .41 adjusted to correct ε2 = .90 it follows that then E-Cat T=896C !

Formula according Optris manual: Tcorrect := (ε1/ε2)1/3* T measured Lugano.)

Why is THH, our FUD'er, complaining about this, albeit mfp measured the exact very same temperature - 900C - for alumina with the corrected emissivity of 0.9 ? Anybody is free to answer this...

With the given new Temperature the Lugano COP is lowered by a factor of 2.85 (Plank T4 law) and increased by a factor 0.46/0.41 for the somewhat higher total emissivity of Aluminum at 900C. (Ignoring that convection might be somewhat higher % at lower T)

Finally we end up with a COP of 1.41 which is perfectly in line with the old exact the same experiments of Levi! (Two independent tests!)

If I would take your (THH) wrong total emissivity of 0.6, then the Lugano COP would be around 1.9. Didn't you grasp, that I (intentionally) used your proposed wrong total emissivity for 900C ??? Only in your phantasy world, where the E-cat was only 600C, 0.6 would have been correct!

Thus come back to ground level 1 and accept the reality of LENR.

Display More

Wyttenbach. You will forgive me for not accepting assertion as fact.

I'll be happy to look at MFMP work if you link that which you suppose supports your assertions. The only thing I've heard is a Lugano reanalysis from them in line with TC's which contradicts your analysis and supports the (commonsense) one here?

I'm sorry that you intentionally used wrong data in your calculations; perhaps that and red ink makes for good polemic, but I'd suggest you join me and try for a best estimate idea of truth without fear, favour, or bias.

I'd also like you to link the "Optris manual" which you claim states that their devices use a fixed n=3. The whole thing, not a dubious extracted image. I've read all I can find in English and nothing says this. They say that they have a lookup table to implement the equation, and that n in that is very variable.

As far as operation goes Optris state that emissivity must be calibrated at temperature. If this is done then the value of n is irrelevant, of course.

So: I'm sympathetic with the view that Lugano tests errors are higher than even TC claimed, due to the Optris instrument not correctly mapping from input emissivity to temperature. I think that unlikely, but cannot rule it out. I'm totally unsympathetic with your new strong claims that the Lugano results show COP ~1.5. I guess for you to move from 2 to 1.5 is progress, but we are still not yet at a final resting place; with your estimates still way out of kilter with others. lets see if we can discover why.

I still await the precise links for the two substantive facts you quote above: that the Optris device incorrectly incorporates emissivity into its temperature measurements, and that MFMP claim the Lugano results correspond to a COP of 1.5.

I'd find it very helpful if you followed Abd and linked the sources you use to make your arguments. That way others can look at them and check your interpretations.

Regards, THH

@Wyttenbachnull
i do you the courtesy of believing that you mean what you say, and are trying to understand this matter.

Quote from W

The exponent from the Optris formula can be deduced from the quantom storage physics they use for their "nano bolometer" sensor array. But to understand this, you have to dig somewhat deeper.Just forget what you have written. It might be OK for an older type of Bolometer, but not for the Optris one. 900C is the same Temperature as mfp measured with the dogbone, when adjusting to the correct (e=0.9) emissivity, what is a proof that the Optris formula is correct!With this 900C the Lugano COP goes down well below 2, but we can deduce nothing else out of the rotten experiment.

You are not getting it. the type of bolometer is irrelevant. Whatever nonlinearity the bolometer does or does not have, the Optris device must correctly infer temperature from radiant power impinging (or, if you prefer, number of photons impinging).

Different bolometer characteristics within the pass band (for example, strict photon counting would emphasise long wavelengths when compared with power absorbtion) will have a small affect on the answer. However what we all know, (and the optris graph confirms) is that the value on n is NOT fixed. It varies very much with T. Therefore the way you propose to interpret this cryptic figure on one Optris graph - as n = 3 fixed - cannot be correct. If you disagree with this, please explain how the varying slope (on the Optris log/log graph) of radiance vs temperature can be explained? And, for once do us the coutsesy of following through a previous argument: as is normal when interested in communication and truth - rather than flitting from one idea to another and drawing new half-baked conclusions while abandoning old ones without reference? It is straining even my patience: though I notice on this matter Paradigmnoia is a better communicator than me, so perhaps he can help.

Quote

You mixup some simple math. 3 is an exponent 1/3 the radix.

Your statement on which I commented:

Quote

Formula according Optris manual (ε1/ε2)1/3* T measured in Kelvin.

I now understand you meant: (e1/e2)^(1/3) or equivalently using the concept you find important: n=3. (I don't think may people would find the word radix helpful when you mean the inverse of the exponent - it is not a common usage).

Anyway, whatever the Optris manual says, it would lead to very large grey body temperature errors if it really used this value for all T. Could that be true? In that case we cannot trust any of the Optris temperature measurements unless e=1. I cannot rule that out: but it would be surprising since so extremely at odds with physical reality.

Paradigmnoiaa: Wyttenbach claims that the Optris instrument always modifies T (for the same received radiance) as Tadj = Tbb* (1/e)^(1/3)

Tbb = temperature displayed for emissivity=1 entered
Tadj = temperature displayed for emissivity=e entered

All measurements in K.

That would make its grey-body measurements highly inaccurate, and seems highly unlikely to me. Software can do so much better easily! Do you have any evidence?

For the matter at hand however, the original proposition that the Lugano data, when not massaged by IH FUD purveyors, shows COP=2 is unsound either way. Wyttenbach: care to apologise for the sustained discourtesy?

Regards, THH

Quote from Shane

Maybe you are mixing up the "aeronautical-industry grade black paint" coating the Hotcat referenced above from the very first (TPR1/Ferrara) "Hotcat" report , with this Aramco, or whatever paint you mention in regard to TPR2?

I vaguely remember this paint as being disclosed as Aramco at some time. It certainly could be so: they do paints for hot temperatures.