10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[parallel]

KitemanSA

tomclarke was telling the truth as far as he is concerned. He thinks one should disbelieve extraordinary claims before checking them out. He makes this clear with almost every post.

Not a very scientific approach but all too common with the establishment.

[parallel]

Validation of hot cat posted here.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high- ... published/

[parallel]

Conclusion
The "Rossi effect" is verified
The power source can not be of chemical nature.

[Enginerd]

Conclusion
The "Rossi effect" is verified
The power source can not be of chemical nature.

Says who?

Was there an independent test of heat output over an extended period (say 2 weeks) without adding the complexity of a phase change? Was a separate but identical test performed concurrently using the same control system and the same input power, and using an identical device, but without adding the secret nickel powder? Was the secret nickel powder subjected to an independent mass spectrometry test before the run, then subjected to another independent mass spectrometry test after the run? If the power heating the device is nuclear, we would expect a characteristic change in the isotopic signature of the nickel powder which could be easily and repeatably checked by any credible lab, and would show isotopic ratios quite unlike those we find in the initial sample, and unlike that of every other nickel sample on Earth.

"The power source can not be of chemical nature" does not rule out the obvious conclusion that "the power source may very well be electrical in nature due to deliberate fraud".

Seems to me we have yet more self reported smoke and mirrors....

[paperburn1]

Conclusion
The "Rossi effect" is verified
The power source can not be of chemical nature.

220v and 6 ohms, this will give 36.67 Amps
watts=220*36.67=8066.67
This is 8kw.
Plus if they did not compensate for the known inaccuracy of the thermal camera we still could be at the point where it was supplied by an external power source. Oh for the lack of a thermocouple you could have maybe made a convert.
A really simple test is monitor the input power, let it boil water for as long as it can , measure water used, use that math we all learned in high school. All questions answered in one simple test. Hard to refute data.

[GIThruster]

No, that's not a simple test. Calorimetry is very complex to do properly and especially needs to include a proper control where you can test the energy in, for example with an electric heater and then calibrate your system using it. Done properly the system will tell you how accurate it is. IIRC, the calorimetry at Rowan was 99.97% accurate.

In any event, calorimetry is not high school math and it constantly screwed up by people pretending they had a clue.

[Skipjack]

This test seems a little better set up than previous ones. At least on a first look. Gotta do some math over all that before I get my conclusions.
The report is signed by a David Bianchini, M.Sc.
I assume that is the same: Bianchini David. Physics Department - University of Bologna. Not saying that this proofs anything yet, but is a step in the right direction.

[PNeilson10]

Rossi is hilarious.

Tom - don't expect me to contradict you on Rossi - have a ball with this "Report".

[parallel]

Rossi requested this note to be attached to the announcement.

“This report comes from two separated tests made on the 16th of July and the 7th of August, made by the Certificator and professors from 2 Universities. We are under NDA with both, but I want to make very clear that this is not a final report, because all the measurements have to be repeated many times before reaching the reliability necessary to a product. Therefore all the measurements have to be repeated many times more. We are on the right way to make a very important product, but much R&D work has still to be done.”

The point the usual naysayers overlook is that the anomalous heat generated is way beyond instrument error. Just like it has been in previous demonstrations with the regular E-Cats. There is only a limited time that tomclarke can continue to dismiss LENR as measurement error.

Rossi said the more detailed tests will be carried out in October. The group think skeptics, who have filled the last 312 pages with their certainty Rossi is a fraud, will not accept that either. All they achieve is proof of their stupidity and Rossi's prediction that only the sale of working units will prove sufficient.

[Joseph Chikva]

Conclusion
The "Rossi effect" is verified
The power source can not be of chemical nature.

Says who?

As I have read the link provided by Mr. Parallel, saied by certain Fabio Penon, M.Eng (Nuclear Engineering Specialist).
Radiation test conducted by David Bianchini (Physicist, Radiation Measurements Specialist).
May be because of my bad English and I give to word "certification" another meaning, but what status those persons have? And what kind certicate they can issue?
Proffessor David Bianchini looks like age-mate of my son.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46EVV0di3Zw
This does not matter. But I doubt in their status.

Concerning the meaning of article I able to read that only today evening.
But in any case this is not "certification" in my understanding of this word.

[tomclarke]

KitemanSA

tomclarke was telling the truth as far as he is concerned. He thinks one should disbelieve extraordinary claims before checking them out. He makes this clear with almost every post.

Not a very scientific approach but all too common with the establishment.

OK, lets be precise. By disbelieve I mean assign a low probability, say <0.1, by believe, I mean assign a high probability, say > 0.9.

If you don't like these definitions make your own.

the point is that extraordinary = def prior probability < 0.001.

Again role your own probabilities if you don't like the precise figures, here for example.

So without checking them out, you have no evidence and extraordinary stays disbelieved.

Further, for extraordinary to be probable you need evidence so strong there is less than 1 chance in 500 of the evidence true and the hypothesis false. (Errors etc).

So that is why extraordinary claims should be disbelieved without extraordinary evidence. (Ok, you get a 0.2 belief with evidence slightly less extraordinary than the claim, but that is nitpicking).

So far, I would put the Rossi claim prior at 1 in 10,000. I would put the Rossi evidence at null (because there are so many internal contradictions from anything rossi-related, and there is no external validation.

[paperburn1]

No, that's not a simple test. Calorimetry is very complex to do properly and especially needs to include a proper control where you can test the energy in, for example with an electric heater and then calibrate your system using it. Done properly the system will tell you how accurate it is. IIRC, the calorimetry at Rowan was 99.97% accurate.

In any event, calorimetry is not high school math and it constantly screwed up by people pretending they had a clue.

OK, I buy will that for a dollar,It seem simple to me but again I am not the smartest or sanest person in the world. But isn't this suppose to make a "usefull" amount of extra power so the testing should be easier to get definitive results. All the testing I have read so far leave too many unknowns to say for sure. So heat a know volume of water with a control. Heat a known volume of water with the device in question (it is rumored to run after you turn off the electric so this makes it even easier)
Plot the differences, document the results, change the world for the better or go home.

[tomclarke]

Validation of hot cat posted here.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high- ... published/

Attempted Validation of Rossi E-cat. Analysis of Fabio Penon Report

Looking at this data (which I am willing to suppose for sake of argument is the honest record of the scientist concerned) I see zero validation.

First point is that the analysis is superficial, and leaves out a number of crucial issues, as well as making a number of elementary mistakes.

Second point is that this method of measuring power is distinctly flakey, for the many reasons below

Third point is that this person has the wrong skill set for the validation. He is a nuclear radiation specialist. This has no relevance to the test performed. This is proven by the large number of mistakes he makes, as well as issues he does not investigate or control.

Fourth point is that these tests are performed under NDA, which means that Rossi can supress any comment, or any individual test result, that he considers unfavourable. Maybe he did 10 tests, and this was the only one with such flakey analysis and a favourable overall conclusion. [you need a pretty incompetent general physicist to do a writeup as bad as this one].

Fifth point is that given all the above, the stated gain here is only 2X. So we need experimental errors of only this order. As you can see they exist.

OK, here are the assumptions made in the test which are incorrect and could lead to overestimate of the energy out or underestimate of the energy in:

• (1) the V & A meters are designed for low frequencies. They will not detect higher frequency power in to the resistors. I note especially the statement that the VA meter gives results very different from the V & A meters, but with no further info.
  
  This would abe a red flag to any competent experimenter. Why are the three instruments not giving the same results? Instead our hero decides to ignore the VA meter and use V & A meter results without further investigation.
  
  It is not likely to be phase difference (VA meter would then correctly indicate less than V & A meters) because at 50Hz the resistor will be very accurate pue resistance. It could be the effect of high frequency power components which would have unexpected defects on all the meters, and lead to inconsistency. High frequency compoinents are the most obvious way to inject extra power into the system than is measured with standard mains frequency meters.
  
  (2) The power out is measured assuming BB radiation - but the radiating tube is not necessarily black body. So we cannot safely extrapolate from IR meter to total power using the BB radiation formula.
  
  (3) the BB radiation formula is applied to the total area of the outer tube (calculated). But it is noted that the temperature of the outer tube is not constant. Since the BB formula varies as T^4 small changes in temperature have a larger change on output power. So the calculation , using the hottest value measured from the top, is not safe.
  
  (4) (this is a big one). The assumption is made that the inner tube radiates power proportional to T^4 and surface area. This is true (roughly). But no account is taken of the power absorbed by the inner tube. Since the system is closed this will be almost identical to the power radiated! We should ignore the inner power radiated and hence use the outer area, not the outer + inner area.
  
  A similar mistake is made about the outer tube, where power absorbed from ambient radiation is ignored. The error due to ignoring incoming power here is of order (Tamb/Trad)^4.
  
  (5) There is no statement of where the equipment comes from, how it is calibrated. there is no control (for example using the resistors in the same tube without the magic powder). Big, big mistake.
  
  (6) the inner tube is white-hot in air. Therefore the steel will oxidise, an exothermic reaction. If we suppose 10% of total mass oxidises that would be 400g, with enthalpy 7.5MJ/kg, we get 3MJ extra energy from combustion, or 0.8kW-h. This is 60% of the total electrical energy input! Note that the steel tube mass is 2kg, but we include resistor mass as well since we have no idea what happens to the resistors under this extreme thermal stress, they are likely to burn.
  http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire92/PDF/f92030.pdf
  Evidence for this is is the strange shape of the power profile in the test, with highest input powers only at the end when the device presumably undergoes some irreversible changes. Note also that because of the T^4 factor the lower temperatures earlier in teh test contribute much less to overall power and energy calculations than you might expect. Averaging temperature does not work!

Now, I've probably missed some issues, and maybe I've made a few mistakes myself, but these will do for now.

I'm not saying that all of these issues are troublesome. Maybe Rossi does not inject HF pulses into the resistor to inflate input power beyond that measured, though this must be on the cards given the noted discrepancy between VA meter and V & A meters.

But even a few of them would together be enough to account for the observed apparent 2X greater output power than input.

With this level of uncertainty in the experiment you cannot conclude anything. That is what all Rossi's demos have had - so much uncertainty that the results are worthless.

Of course, normal people would reckon that measuring power out which is double electrical power in unambiguously is not too dificult. That is true, but you would need a proper experimental setup, not one of Rossi's carefully crafted demos. You would need to run it for long enough that chemical sources were ruled out - not the case here as you can see.

The given method could be made pretty safe without departing from measurement protocol as follows:
(1) use control test with identical tube, identical electric power in, no magic powder.
(2) check power in much more carefully with high frequency scope

[paperburn1]

And just to clarify a point, I want this to work, I want polywell to work. I have a sincere and complete belief that we are at a point in out society that we need a new and more powerfully energy source to continue as a society and technological based lifestyle. Without it we are going to have to drop back several level of technology to survive as a people. As a child I farmed with horses and there is no way I want to go back to that level of lifestyle.
There are several thinkers, authors and professors that believe that our technological level is directly based on the amount and density of our available energy source. Without it we are forced to drop back to a level that we can sustain with available resources. This also entails a collapse of society and culture as well back to those levels as well.
In short I want my flying cars and supercomputers, my warm house and color TV. I like the way I live right now and to keep it doing it so we need a smaller denser energy source to achieve this goal. So show me it works or get on to something else because this is important. Very important that we do. IMHO
PS Sorry for the rant.

[Joseph Chikva]

Validation of hot cat posted here.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high- ... published/

And I've read.
At page 14 is written:

The highest average temperature of the external surface was found to be 1074.13 deg K, equivalent to 800.98 deg C. This result was gathered from the 5:49:00 PM frame (frame 17h49).
At this temperature, the E-cat module irradiates 9.0033 kW according to the first hypothesis, and 13.39 kW according to the second hypothesis.
Power input to the resistors (resistively heaters added by me JC) at 5:49:00 PM was 3.56 kW.

So, instead of direct measurement of heat these "experimentators" and "certificators" have chosen indirect method of measurement, by which device having only 2% measurement error they've got 30% error.
I have the third hypothesis that everything there again was falsified.
As there are many more reliable heat measurement methods without necessity to use any assumptions (hypothesis) in experiment.
Also coordination of current heating capacity with radiating capacity is not quite correctly too. As we can switch off for a while a heating element and irradiation would remain.

My impression that these people have a technical skill but are less skilled in theory. They can conduct experiment only under supervision of another person who has a skill or experiment planning.