Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Analyzing the E-cat calorimetry
Options
Comments
-
Rossi has …. I think it is a bit unfair to second guess his statements …
I think it is appropriate to comply with a precise scale of priorities in the use of the sources.
For example, my level of reliability is as follows:
1 (maximum reliability): the laws of classical physics and the physical properties of matter already established;
2 (very high): videos and photos;
3 (high): Lewan, Krivit and Passerini (limited to what they have personally seen and measured);
4 (quite low): Essen and Kullander (they showed little understanding of calorimetry);
5 (very low): Levi (he made plenty of obvious errors);
6 (only for what does not conflict with the previous sources): Rossi (we say "do not ask the landlord, if the wine is good")
Suppose that the E-Cat does not work. Do you think that it will be never made available for open review?I suspect that we will not know the truth until later this year when products are made available for open review.... And of course, I would need to have a copy of the Excel spread sheet to have confidence that there are no tricks used to modify parameters. Further, I will need to ensure that the heat capacity of the materials are reasonable and the thermal resistances are not unacceptable. This is not an easy task.
Do you really think that there are tricks? A spreadsheet like the one in my model can be developed by most physics student. It only takes 2 simple physical laws and properties of saturated steam. The best way to verify that the model is correct is developing another one from scratch and compare the results.
This also applies to your electric water heater. Who can exclude that heat comes partly from some arcane nuclear reaction? You seem to forget that the E-Cat story is different from all other CF/LENR experiments in which only small excess energy were claimed. This is about a device that should ensure an excess energy of at least 6 times the absorbed one.I assume that everyone realizes that the model most likely will only show that it is possible for the energy output to be originating with the input but can not prove that there is no excess energy as a result of LENR. It is just one possiblity among at least two.
I am beginning to doubt that you actually want to know the truth. I suspect that you, like many others, have put so many expectations on the E-Cat, which is very difficult if not impossible to accept the evidence of the facts.... I want to know the truth about this particular system and if Rossi is scaming, we need to know it as soon as possible.
I have already shown the results of this test on this site http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14728165-apparato-rossi-focardi-verita-o-bufala-135.html#post119275652. For completeness, I put the slide here. I'm sorry it is in Italian, but the diagrams are easily understood. They show that there is no need to invoke the presence of excess heat from extraordinary phenomena to justify the 5 and a half hours of self-sustaining. The model can be further improved, but the essential results would remain the same.I have done much more work with the October 6 test …, then we should go back to the October test and concentrate upon those results. … I am fairly convinced that the October 6 test shows excess energy.0 -
I think it is appropriate to comply with a precise scale of priorities in the use of the sources.
For example, my level of reliability is as follows:
1 (maximum reliability): the laws of classical physics and the physical properties of matter already established;
I agree, but when the laws of classical physics do not cover the situation at all, as is the case with LENR, the reliability is useless.2 (very high): videos and photos;
These forms of evidence can be good or bad. Without the proper control of the source of the information, we can never be sure it is accurate.3 (high): Lewan, Krivit and Passerini (limited to what they have personally seen and measured);
This is our best evidence. Mats Lewan is one that I rely upon heavily.4 (quite low): Essen and Kullander (they showed little understanding of calorimetry);
We need more evidence of their capabilities before such a conclusion can be drawn.5 (very low): Levi (he made plenty of obvious errors);
This is your opinion. Others may not agree with it.6 (only for what does not conflict with the previous sources): Rossi (we say "do not ask the landlord, if the wine is good")
I also question a lot of his statements. It is not clear why he intends to mislead, but it is aparent that he does this.Suppose that the E-Cat does not work. Do you think that it will be never made available for open review?
I agree with you in this statement. If nothing is seen within the next 6 months I will assume that it is not real. Let's wait that long to determine the facts. How much damage will we incur to give the egg a chance to hatch?Do you really think that there are tricks? A spreadsheet like the one in my model can be developed by most physics student. It only takes 2 simple physical laws and properties of saturated steam. The best way to verify that the model is correct is developing another one from scratch and compare the results.
I only expect for your model to be held to the same high standards that you are applying to the Rossi ECAT. You do not trust what you have seen in the videos, and I can not accept your calculations with less than that level of proof. Why would you not agree to this? Also, I was hoping that someone like yourself who applies the current laws of physics in a reasonable manner would save me the time and effort of reinventing the wheel. It has nothing to do with me assuming tricks. Have you heard the term "Trust but Verify"? How foolish do you think I would seem if later it was discovered that you faked the model in some manner and had me believing it to be true?This also applies to your electric water heater. Who can exclude that heat comes partly from some arcane nuclear reaction? You seem to forget that the E-Cat story is different from all other CF/LENR experiments in which only small excess energy were claimed. This is about a device that should ensure an excess energy of at least 6 times the absorbed one.
Do I understand that you suggest that your model can prove that LENR is not possible in this case? That is really stretching the facts. All that a model can prove is that it is just one possible method. Is this not clear? Of course, it adds a lot of support to your possition if the model works.
Please consider that the LENR effect is not expected to start at low temperatures and then to linearly operate. My thoughts are that there is some threshold level of temperature required after which the energy starts to be generated. The energy released versus temperature must be highly nonlinear. Further, the maximum temperature that the core reaches must be held to a level below where thermal run away occurs. Since Rossi is running the device in the self sustaning mode, the temperature of the core must be falling fairly fast and out of control. So, in the powered mode with 3 cores we would expect the 6 to 1 ratio you mention but not in this test. It is not clear what is expected so we need to be able to detect subtle amounts of excess energy.
If you look closely at the October 6 test you will see the peak temperature I have referred to before. This can be explained by a burst of excess energy, but your model does not show such an effect. The thermocouple readings from the test indicate a burst of output power that is about 3 times the input pulse as I expect. The 6 to 1 ratio of output to input would be expected if all three of the cores were installed. Your model totally disregards this effect and you should want to know why.I am beginning to doubt that you actually want to know the truth. I suspect that you, like many others, have put so many expectations on the E-Cat, which is very difficult if not impossible to accept the evidence of the facts.
It makes me sad to hear you suggest this. Do you not realize that the exact same criteria applies to skeptics such as yourself? So far the evidence points to the fact that LENR is happening. Please review the many papers within the library at LENR-CANR.org. Hundreds of tests have been conducted with positive results. These performed by Rossi are just a few among many. I would bet that you have not read many of them at all to have such a closed mind about the subject.Quote:
I have done much more work with the October 6 test …, then we should go back to the October test and concentrate upon those results. … I am fairly convinced that the October 6 test shows excess energy.
I have already shown the results of this test on this site http://www.energeticambiente.it/sist...#post119275652. For completeness, I put the slide here. I'm sorry it is in Italian, but the diagrams are easily understood. They show that there is no need to invoke the presence of excess heat from extraordinary phenomena to justify the 5 and a half hours of self-sustaining. The model can be further improved, but the essential results would remain the same.
One thing you should realize is that you have a different model for the October test. Why does it take two different ones to represent the same animal? To me this suggests that you have tweaked each one to obtain the best fit for that particular test. Could it be that neither one would work in both cases? I am not referring to the input water flow rate differences. The actual metal content as well as the thermal resistance values are different too. How do you explain this? You would except nothing less from Rossi than I am requesting.
I was hoping that we could analyze the test from October which is far better than the September one. Your reluctance to pursue this makes me suspicious of your reasons. Why would you concentrate on the short run time test where it is much easier to hide LENR effects? Maybe you have already come to the conclusion that your model will not stand up to my level of review.
The door of cooperation is still open, but I am detecting that you are not really interested in seeking the truth unless it is your truth. The ball is in your court. Do you wish to proceed with the October review or should we part as friends?0 -
In the March report, they write "The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C". This statement is absurd, any student of physics knows that above 374 ° C (the value of the critical point) it is impossible to distinguish the liquid from the gaseous phase.
We need more evidence of their capabilities before such a conclusion can be drawn.Ascoli65 wrote:4 (quite low): Essen and Kullander (they showed little understanding of calorimetry);
Also, they do not care to measure the total amount of water pumped in the ecat, as it has done more carefully by Lewan.
All this leads me to believe that they are by no means experts in calorimetry.
Of course, it is my opinion, but it is based on the fact that his January report is full of errors. For example, how do you define the inconsistency shown in the attached jpeg which shows that Levi estimated a duration of maximum power more than double the actual length? And this is not the worst mistake.
This is your opinion. Others may not agree with it.5 (very low): Levi (he made plenty of obvious errors);
The credibility on the E-Cat is based on the responsibility of academics who have guaranteed the excess energy, but these academics seems to be incompetent regarding calorimetry. You can draw your cosequences.
But I do not speak of LENR, I speak of the E-Cat. In my opinion, the E-Cat is only based on the well known Joule effect, not on the ineffable LENR. However, the credit granted to the E-Cat claims by the CF/LENR community, casts much doubts on how well they were all collected the data on which the LENR theory is based.So far the evidence points to the fact that LENR is happening.
But they really are different animals! The October one is almost 18 kg heavier. I can imagine that other things have been changed, such as the thermal insulation in order to obtain a longer self-sustaining period. And, on the basis of the results of September test, the flow rate has been also reduced.One thing you should realize is that you have a different model for the October test. Why does it take two different ones to represent the same animal?
When the October model was developed, I had read that there were 2 exchangers. Now, I have changed the model leaving only the upper one, obtaining similar results as the previous model. When I have time, I will post the new diagrams.
I developed the September model after your request. Do not you remember? I had begun to study the October test, the longest one.Your reluctance to pursue this makes me suspicious of your reasons. Why would you concentrate on the short run time test where it is much easier to hide LENR effects? Maybe you have already come to the conclusion that your model will not stand up to my level of review.
Suspicions and doubts are your problems. I've already found an answer about how the E-Cat works. It does not rely only on the results of the models, but on the careful analysis of the information, weighed on the scale of reliability that I have already described.
I did not ask any cooperation. You did have requested more information on my model in order to find the truth as soon as possible. I gave you this information. If you want, I'll give you more. I do it willingly. I'm glad to talk with you, but sorry I've found my truth. I do not pretend that it is yours too. You can wait another six months, or until the end of the year or beyond. It's about you. It depends on what you mean with “as soon as possible”.The door of cooperation is still open, but I am detecting that you are not really interested in seeking the truth unless it is your truth.0 -
Advertisement