Joseph,Joseph Chikva wrote:No, there is present time and not past.olivier wrote:It suggests that they may (it is a or not an and) have worked on other inventions in the same field.
There is written "has" and not "had"
This is official press release of serious company?
No parallel, I could not be bothered to do the experimental deconstruction and data analysis, especially because there is not enough detail to do this well.parallel wrote:olivier,tomclarke stated "Truly amazing that Rossi could not manufacture any heat generation even with so little checking!" He has misread the data from Mats Lewan.parallel, you cannot use such an argument. It deserves the answer "Even a school kid could see that many points remain obscure in the way this experiment was run."
You might claim the measurements are bad, but that is not what he did. He used the same data that I did. He saw the graph as a check and still missed it. He concluded that I was insane...
As I wrote earlier, if you are convinced that LENR is impossible, anything that shows it must be wrong. All the suggestions of fraud, including steam quality, have now been eliminated. All you can claim is that the measurements are bad.
If aluminium powder is hot enough/fine enough it burns/reacts. Could vent hydrogen with steam - though a bit dangerous, or perhaps react with peroxide to produce more water, or entrained oxygen in water supply...JoeP wrote: If that aluminum trick is used, then where do you propose all the H2 was vented?
Also, the oxide layer would interfere with all the metal getting into the reaction.
Simply because you are a skeptic.tomclarke wrote:Consider an oscillating flow rate either zero at high T or fast at low T. The measured temperature will average out the temperature of water with time, but NOT the temperature of water with water volume.
So you see that unless we have flow rate with time, this experimental protocol, like all Rossi's others, is totally broken.
Now why would that be I wonder...
tom, you wrote:No parallel, I could not be bothered to do the experimental deconstruction and data analysis, especially because there is not enough detail to do this well.
I looked first as Mats's conclusions - after all he is pro-Rossi, so if these are not favourable (they are not) it does not look good.
having looked more closely I still cannot be sure which of the myriad of possible errors exist in this experiment, but Mats' assumption that we must use the lowest deltaT to get energy out is correct since only total flow, and not instantaneous flow, is measured. It would be easier for the higher deltaT parts to have much lower flow rate.
In fact, by modulating flow rate, i can produce an arbitrarily high output for given "real output" even with Mats conservative assumption.
Consider an oscillating flow rate either zero at high T or fast at low T. The measured temperature will average out the temperature of water with time, but NOT the temperature of water with water volume.
So you see that unless we have flow rate with time, this experimental protocol, like all Rossi's others, is totally broken.
Now why would that be I wonder...
It sounds like you can't be bothered to get your facts right either.Is it not extraordinary that in this latest test the total energy out is still LESS than the total energy in?
What, no skeptical girls in italy, who will swoon at a good deconstruction of a bad experiment?Giorgio wrote:Simply because you are a skeptic.tomclarke wrote:Consider an oscillating flow rate either zero at high T or fast at low T. The measured temperature will average out the temperature of water with time, but NOT the temperature of water with water volume.
So you see that unless we have flow rate with time, this experimental protocol, like all Rossi's others, is totally broken.
Now why would that be I wonder...
If you were a true believer not only you could average the water temperature with its volume, but you could also transform the output water in a chilled wine fountain.
Now, just imagine what kind of wild experiment could that become if we also invite some guests from the Playboy mansion!
It could really shake the foundations of scientific knowledge or the spring of your bed, depending on how lucky you get to be.......
If you view my beautiful (OK, I'm immodest) thought experiment above as waffle it shows you have the soul of an accountant, coupled with zero grasp of physics.parallel wrote:tom, you wrote:No parallel, I could not be bothered to do the experimental deconstruction and data analysis, especially because there is not enough detail to do this well.
I looked first as Mats's conclusions - after all he is pro-Rossi, so if these are not favourable (they are not) it does not look good.
having looked more closely I still cannot be sure which of the myriad of possible errors exist in this experiment, but Mats' assumption that we must use the lowest deltaT to get energy out is correct since only total flow, and not instantaneous flow, is measured. It would be easier for the higher deltaT parts to have much lower flow rate.
In fact, by modulating flow rate, i can produce an arbitrarily high output for given "real output" even with Mats conservative assumption.
Consider an oscillating flow rate either zero at high T or fast at low T. The measured temperature will average out the temperature of water with time, but NOT the temperature of water with water volume.
So you see that unless we have flow rate with time, this experimental protocol, like all Rossi's others, is totally broken.
Now why would that be I wonder...It sounds like you can't be bothered to get your facts right either.Is it not extraordinary that in this latest test the total energy out is still LESS than the total energy in?
The rest is waffle. You make a claim that is grossly wrong and then do not apologize when this is pointed out to you.
You claim there are all sorts of experimental errors but can't be bothered to quantify them. How then do you know they are errors?
The evidence for LENR is piling up. What will you do when there is no escaping it? Put it down to bad measurements?
Ok, thanks.polyill wrote:Joseph,Joseph Chikva wrote:No, there is present time and not past.olivier wrote:It suggests that they may (it is a or not an and) have worked on other inventions in the same field.
There is written "has" and not "had"
This is official press release of serious company?
"has enhanced", is a past tense. It means they made something in the recent past and now they mean the result of it, which they have at present.
Here's a simple explanation of this mystery of English grammar. Enjoy.
Yes, aluminum powder is used in many explosive composition for enhancing heat ability.RobL wrote:If aluminium powder is hot enough/fine enough it burns/reacts. Could vent hydrogen with steam - though a bit dangerous, or perhaps react with peroxide to produce more water, or entrained oxygen in water supply...JoeP wrote: If that aluminum trick is used, then where do you propose all the H2 was vented?
Also, the oxide layer would interfere with all the metal getting into the reaction.
Point is there are ways to cheat that would not neccesarily have been picked up in demos done - fiber optic lasers in opaque inlet water pipe or extra power wires in same (a DC return loop would not show up), hidden hot water/steam heat pipes, microwave sources, xray sources, other chemical reactants in supplied water, heat pumps, dodgy instruments, the list goes on and on and on.
Hence need for longer demos with someone else's (competent) calorimetry setup, and black box Ecat
The main problem with your scenario is that the box was opened and it is quite clear where the hot water/steam came from and how it exited. No clever valves and double pathways. You left out the computer to control the imaginary device so that it showed variable and increasing heat with time, not to mention the difficulty of storing that much heat. Small detail I suppose. Also how you play that trick with a positive displacement pump. Details details...tomclarke wrote:OK folks
I'm going to reveal my Q=10 LENR device. It will produce results just like Rossi has, look rather like rossi's device, but because i understand how it works the output will be "controllable".
The basic idea is that we need to get high deltaT and high average flow rate, so that power out appears 10X power in.
Apparent Power-out = average deltaT * average flow-rate
or even more conservative;
Apparent power out = minimum deltaT * average flow-rate
I'm going to ignore speciifc heat capacity of water etc, it may be asumed a constant.
So, how can we get anomalously high minimum deltaT?
Its pretty easy. We use the input power to heat up some insulated metal (the hot nugget) inside the TE-Cat (I'm going to start selling this device, since I can do so much better than Rossi).
The water has two paths: either through a heat exhanger with the hot nugget, or direct, no heat. When it goes through the hot nuggest it will of course flow much more slowly (the heat exchanger).
For this thought experiment imagine a valve switching between the two paths every second, but you can imagine purely passive systems, based on water-locks, etc, that would do the same thing.
So we get:
1s * 0.01 l/s flow * deltaT (water) = 80C
1s * 1l/s flow * deltaT = 0C
The power extracted from the hot nugget is of course reduced by factor 100 from what you would expect, given the overall flow rate and a temperature rise of 80C.
What temperature rise is recorded? the walls of the output tube average temperature out over 1s, and we can assume power lost via these wall is small compared with the power flow at 80C and 0.01 l/s. If not just use walls that insulate better.
However we can also assume the time constant of the thermocouple and its immediate thermal mass to be >> 1s. (If not, just design walls which are insulating on inside and have high thermal mass on outside. My TE-cat will be optimised in this manner and so show almost constant output temperature.
The output temperature will be the time-averaged water temperature, which is deltaT = +40C. the minimum output temperature will not be much different from the average.
The output power will however be 1/100 of what you would get with 40C deltaT and a constant flow equal to the average flow.
I can easily engineer this for apparent Q=50.
Which makes me think Rossi is just a very bad engineer, not a charlatan?
Best wishes, Tom
