Talk-Polywell.org

a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 7:13 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Community Forums » News

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 297 of 384
  [ 5752 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 ... 384  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
happyjack27
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
Posts: 1018
tom clarke, what do you think of the <s>6</s>4 independant replications of the SPAWAR co-deposition experiment, in light of your earlier comment about the lack of independant replication?

also what do you have to say about the fact that all the replications had positive results in light of your conjecture that they only report positive results? is it just that they only reported the positive results, which happened to be all of the replication efforts?

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/20 ... ia2007.pdf


Last edited by happyjack27 on Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
happyjack27
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
Posts: 1018
happyjack27 wrote:
tomclarke wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakScalorimetra.pdf


OK. This writeup annoys me. The (accepted) theory behind temperature changes is presented in great detail. However the raw data from which the experimental results are obtained is left out. So we are not able to consider in detail for ourselves what are the sources of error. Moreover there is no attempt in the paper to analyse errors. There must be errors. We just don't know how large they are. The excess enthalpy and power graphs do not give input enthalpy and power (they do give input current, but not voltage). And we have no idea what are the temperatures used to calculate powers except the suggested equations involve assumptions about constant heat capacity not always true when bubbles form, and subtraction of calculated errors which tend to indicate that the signal is small compared with various complicating factors. That is a bad sign, but we are just not given anywhere the information to determine how robust is this data.

It annoys me.

Maybe previous write-ups from the same people are better? I am a bit jaded myself having looked at quite a bit and never found anything which is carefully conducted.

Best wishes, Tom


ya, i was disappointed with that paper myself. too theoretical, no raw data. in any case they explain their setup and math pretty well. maybe one of the other papers has something more raw.

"and subtraction of calculated errors which tend to indicate that the signal is small compared with various complicating factors. " so because they're being extra careful you are MORE suspect? that seems counter-intuitive.


might be some better sources in the references on here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSlenrresear.pdf
Top
 Profile  
 
tomclarke
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 1452
Location: London
Quote:
and subtraction of calculated errors which tend to indicate that the signal is small compared with various complicating factors. " so because they're being extra careful you are MORE suspect? that seems counter-intuitive


I did not put that quite right. They are inferring some parameters, like spec heat capacity, which they then use to model the system and so calculate enthalpies. It is Ok, but more complex and error-prone than more direct methods. And maybe they cannot use direct methods because signal is too small, I have not thought about it much because they do not describe in enough detail precisely what they are doing.

[In my "better version of NANOR experiment" above spec heat capacity is unwanted, and serves to slow down things by giving system a time constant. But its effect can be arbitrarily reduced by increasing experiment time.]
Top
 Profile  
 
happyjack27
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
Posts: 1018
tomclarke wrote:
Quote:
and subtraction of calculated errors which tend to indicate that the signal is small compared with various complicating factors. " so because they're being extra careful you are MORE suspect? that seems counter-intuitive


I did not put that quite right. They are inferring some parameters, like spec heat capacity, which they then use to model the system and so calculate enthalpies. It is Ok, but more complex and error-prone than more direct methods. And maybe they cannot use direct methods because signal is too small, I have not thought about it much because they do not describe in enough detail precisely what they are doing.

[In my "better version of NANOR experiment" above spec heat capacity is unwanted, and serves to slow down things by giving system a time constant. But its effect can be arbitrarily reduced by increasing experiment time.]


they do have graphs of enthalphy in that calorimetry paper; you don't have to guess.
Top
 Profile  
 
Skipjack
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Posts: 4542
Quote:
"in all cases of observed..." demonstrably false.

"In the cases of higher claimes excess heat such as Rossi and Defcalion, the experimental setup has to be doubted." why? this is assuming the conclusion.

"Also these have never been independently verified." also demonstrably false.

Uhm, nope, they are not.
Top
 Profile  
 
happyjack27
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
Posts: 1018
Skipjack wrote:
Quote:
"in all cases of observed..." demonstrably false.

"In the cases of higher claimes excess heat such as Rossi and Defcalion, the experimental setup has to be doubted." why? this is assuming the conclusion.

"Also these have never been independently verified." also demonstrably false.

Uhm, nope, they are not.


Care for me to demonstrate, or would you like to retract that statement?
Top
 Profile  
 
Skipjack
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Posts: 4542
Quote:
Care for me to demonstrate, or would you like to retract that statement?

You were the one who first said "demonstrably false". So you demonstrate, where and how Rossi's setup has been independently verified and where in th4e other cases, the excess heat was large enough to be beyond a doubt of a measurement error?
Top
 Profile  
 
Kahuna
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Posts: 295
Location: CA
Brian Wang has an article on "leaked" info/phot of Rossi's (1000C) Hot Cat:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/leaked ... -high.html

Hank Mills @ PESN has some info on the supposed leaker:

http://pesn.com/2012/08/13/9602161_Deta ... ta_Leaker/

The "leaked" results are supposed to be validated in Sept/Oct by Univ. of Bologna. We shall see.
Top
 Profile  
 
tomclarke
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 1452
Location: London
Kahuna wrote:
Brian Wang has an article on "leaked" info/phot of Rossi's (1000C) Hot Cat:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/leaked ... -high.html

Hank Mills @ PESN has some info on the supposed leaker:

http://pesn.com/2012/08/13/9602161_Deta ... ta_Leaker/

The "leaked" results are supposed to be validated in Sept/Oct by Univ. of Bologna. We shall see.


The leak claims the device radiates IR at 800C. The output heat is calculated based on this radiation. However 800C radiation would look red. 800C => BB radiation red.
http://www.hearth.com/econtent/index.ph ... glows_red/

So the outer surface is not at 800C. From the given photo. We don't of course know what other errors exist in this leaked information. But Rossi is pretty outstanding at only ever releasing technical information about his devices that is internally self-inconsistent, as here.
Top
 Profile  
 
parallel
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Posts: 826
Location: Philthydelphia, PA
LENR doubting Thomases might read early comments on the latest Celani demonstration. This has been set up by NI earlier and now TI.
Jed Rothwell reports here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 69102.html
A published paper is to follow.
Top
 Profile  
 
Kahuna
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Posts: 295
Location: CA
parallel wrote:
LENR doubting Thomases might read early comments on the latest Celani demonstration. This has been set up by NI earlier and now TI.
Jed Rothwell reports here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 69102.html
A published paper is to follow.


If Celani can get this running in self-sustain mode for an extended period, that will be very compelling evidence for LENR. It will obviate the need for all the measurment error discussions.
Top
 Profile  
 
ladajo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 3856
Location: North East Coast
"Colonel Engineer" Domenico Fioravanti.

Right.

Has tested Thermodynamics of Nuclear Carriers.

Right.

There are no "Colonels" that test any US Nuclear Carrier Reactors. There certainly are no foreign Colonels especially.

What a load of shyte.

And nobody has yet to explain to me how you can pass 3KW of current via those little wires in the pictures. They certainly do not look like 10 or 12AWG equivilant.

_________________
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Top
 Profile  
 
happyjack27
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
Posts: 1018
Skipjack wrote:
Quote:
Care for me to demonstrate, or would you like to retract that statement?

You were the one who first said "demonstrably false". So you demonstrate, where and how Rossi's setup has been independently verified and where in th4e other cases, the excess heat was large enough to be beyond a doubt of a measurement error?


I know and I'm saying I wouldn't have used the word demonstrably of I wasn't prepared to back it up. But neither of us even mentioned Rosie' setup. Your claim was a general and absolute claim. (which, btw, are rarely correct)
Top
 Profile  
 
Skipjack
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm
Posts: 4542
Quote:
But neither of us even mentioned Rosie' setup

Actually, I did.
Top
 Profile  
 
parallel
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Posts: 826
Location: Philthydelphia, PA
Here is Celani's paper thanks to Jed Rothwell.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFcunimnallo.pdf
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 297 of 384
  [ 5752 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 ... 384  Next

Board index » Community Forums » News

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group