10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:19 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,
From my own experience of measuring this range of temperatures and higher, with IR cameras/pyrometers, the measurement error of the imstrument is dwarfed by errors in emissivity and geometry. The resolution is indeed important when looking for relatively small variations in temperature, when the absolute temperature matters less. That is why both the resolution and accuracy/error are given and important.

You should leave subjects like this to engineers who have actual experience before showing you know little about it. Have you ever done any experiments or field measurements? Tell me, what was the point of RobL's comment? Do you really think I don't know the difference between resolution and accuracy?

You are the one going on about measurement error and it appears you are clueless about the subject.

Hey Parallel, how long did you take in each session to acquire your engineering certification after college?

Yeah, I get it, I'm a jerk....

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:27 pm

Rossi told very openly that he changed his opinion from his viewpoint that the energy comes from transmutation to that the transmutation of Ni is a byproduct of Gamma decay. He said, they measured in special experiments gammas with 40-100 kev. I guess all physicist like me and my friend were intrigued since there is no common decay resulting in such gamma energies. Normally you talk MeV with Gamma decays. But it is excactly what you would excpect from bremsstrahlung of a beta particle in the lattice.

If this is true it's pretty obviously evidence of something other than a chemical reaction. Either Rossi has figured out how to tell people what they want to hear once more, or he has evidence in hand he has an authentic non-chemical reaction. I'd note too, that if he's fabricating evidence by saying he has kev gamma in order to do some fund raising, that would put him in prison and I must know this. I'm starting to think the fraud explanation is less and less likely. What we need is detail of this kev data.

And beta decay of 4H to 4He is excactly what is proposed by Widom & Larson or Brioullin Energy and others. So my friend asked about Rossi’s measurement of 4He which you can measure down to 1 Atom. Rossi’s pause and reaction was hard to interpret. I have to look at his face again on youtube. He answered “Your question is very smart, and I agree”.

Maybe NASA isn't so crackpot as people like to presume. Maybe there's been something here all along.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:58 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,
From my own many years of experience of measuring this range of temperatures and higher, with IR cameras/pyrometers, the measurement error of the imstrument is dwarfed by errors in emissivity and geometry. The resolution is indeed important when looking for relatively small variations in temperature, when the absolute temperature matters less. That is why both the resolution and accuracy/error are given and important.

You should leave subjects like this to engineers who have actual experience before showing you know little about it. Have you ever done any experiments or field measurements?

Yes. And I have designed many systems with ADCs, DACs. So I know what I'm talking about.

Tell me, what was the point of RobL's comment?

You said resolution was important for accuracy. He disagreed.

Do you really think I don't know the difference between resolution and accuracy?

Apparently not. Your comment was wrong. RobL was right. You persisted in saying he was wrong.

Of course, there are situations (deltaT measurements in this case) where resolution matters. But what is important here is accuracy, and resolution is (usually, and in this case) irrelevant to accuracy.

You are the one going on about measurement error and it appears you are clueless about the subject.

You sure? You are behaving like you don't know the datasheet definitions of resolution and accuracy.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:08 pm

GIThruster,

Slowly but surely all the tricks Rossi has ben accused of by the pathological skeptics have been eliminated. It's not thermal inertia, hidden wires, hydrogen dissolved in the water, some chemical reaction, super high frequencies fooling the meters, little green men with ray guns, etc.

All that remains is the famous measurement error that tomclarke says explains every instance of anomalous heat. Doesn't matter which university or who does the measurements, they never know what they are doing according to tom.

As Rossi forecast, the only acceptable proof will be sale of working units and even then I doubt tomclarke will believe it.

I liked Jed Rothwell's comment on Vortex:
Take Home Lesson: Do not dismiss or underestimate a fanatical creative
genius who works 14 hours a day. Strange and disagreeable people such as
Edison, Steve Jobs or Rossi may have "reality distortion fields" but
they often accomplish things that everyone else thinks are impossible.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:14 pm

You may be right but I think you're getting ahead of yourself. We need validation of the kev radiation first.

Too, it would be nice to hear what it takes to shield from kev gamma. If this can generate MW power inside a cubic meter or so, the only thing stopping putting this in mobile applications with the Supercritical CO2 Brayton Turbine (in another thread) is the radiation. How much kev and what it takes to shield are therefore salient issues.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:25 pm

tomclarke,
My original comment, in answer to yours that you didn't know about the pyrometer was:
"Optris industrial pyrometers, depending on model, appear to have a resolution of 0.1C and a claimed accuracy of 0.3%"

I didn't talk about the relevance. RobL brought that up and the resolution is important to MEASUREMENT accuracy in this case in particular.

You wrote:

"And I have designed many systems with ADCs, DACs. So I know what I'm talking about."

So, you have no experimental experience yet go on about measurement error..

What does designing electronic converters have to do with pyrometric temperature measurements anyway?

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:33 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,
My original comment, in answer to yours that you didn't know about the pyrometer was:
"Optris industrial pyrometers, depending on model, appear to have a resolution of 0.1C and a claimed accuracy of 0.3%"

I didn't talk about the relevance. RobL brought that up and the resolution is important to MEASUREMENT accuracy in this case in particular.

I was addressing the 2% accuract case. But if 0.3% accuracy we have 1000C*0.3% = 3C >> 0.1C so again resolution is irrelevant.

You wrote:
"And I have designed many systems with ADCs, DACs. So I know what I'm talking about."
So, you have no experimental experience yet go on about measurement error..

You are selectively quoting parallel. It may come as a surprise, but there are people around who in their life have done both design and experiment. And my first ever job was for a company that manufactured very sophisticated measuring instruments...

What does designing electronic converters have to do with pyrometric temperature measurements anyway?

It means that you understand parameters like resolution, accuracy, and know how the interact (for ADCs it is really important).

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:37 pm

RobL (or anyone else) am I mising something here? I can't work out why parallel is saying these weird things? I thought maybe he is using accuracy in a non-technical sense (accuracy of measurement rather than accuracy of equipment) and considering cases of differential measurement. Then resolution would be significant. But the case here is absolute measuement at high temps, where (equipment) accuracy is the only relevant parameter.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:40 pm

GIThruster,

How much kev and what it takes to shield are therefore salient issues.

The radiation has been measured both for the E-Cats and now the Hot Cats. It is negligible. Rossi says the shielding of the Hot Cat is inside the outer tube. Quite a trick at that temperature.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:47 pm

parallel wrote:GIThruster,

Slowly but surely all the tricks Rossi has ben accused of by the pathological skeptics have been eliminated. It's not thermal inertia, hidden wires, hydrogen dissolved in the water, some chemical reaction, super high frequencies fooling the meters, little green men with ray guns, etc.

All that remains is the famous measurement error that tomclarke says explains every instance of anomalous heat. Doesn't matter which university or who does the measurements, they never know what they are doing according to tom.

Of course it does matter who does teh experiments, as you know. NASA was doing some LENR investigation. If they claim experimenbtal validation I'd take it seriously, so would others.

Maverick academics without insti lab backing (for tests) are giving isolated opinions with no guarentee of quality. If they publish there is better guarantee of quality - because 3 experts in the field will have had a chance to contribute and make sure issues relevant are addressed. But even then it is not certain, not all reviewers are knowledgable or hard-working.

At the end of the day quality is detrmined by the quakity of the write-up. Take the FTL neutrino write-up - very good but they still missed key issues.

The LENR "validations" that I've seen are not high quality.

BTW there is no restriction on publishing this stuff. It is absolutely unnecessary to mention LENR when reporting on anomalous excess heat results from metal lattices, and anomalies are exactly the stuff of science - they get published. But because 99% of experimental anomalies are bad experiments, not new effects, they need to be written up carefully, and the experiment needs to be careful.

I'm sorry its like that. It would be great if getting unambiguous results from experiments wwere easier, so anyone could do it without much attention. But it aint.

Now, back to Rossi:

http://hydrofusion.com/news/press-release

Hydro Fusion witnessed a new independent test of the high temperature ECAT prototype reactor on September 6th in Bologna. Although no full report has yet been received, early indications are that the results of the July 16th/August 7th reports could not be reproduced.

Hydro Fusion cannot at this stage support any claims made, written or other, about the amount of excess heat generated by the new high temperature ECAT prototype.

Note that the the test results that cannot be reproduced include the one we have been discussing above!

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:48 pm

tomclarke,

And my first ever job was for a company that manufactured very sophisticated measuring instruments...

You have still managed to avoid stating what experiments, if any, you actually carried out.

I thought it was simple enough. You need to see the temperature variation over the surface and as it varies with time, heat input etc. Resolution is important for this, even though you don't think it is.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:11 pm

tomclarke wrote:Of course it does matter who does the experiments, as you know. NASA was doing some LENR investigation. If they claim experimenbtal validation I'd take it seriously, so would others.

IIRC, NASA has precisely 2 engineers working on the WLT, Joseph Zawodny and senior scientist Dennis Bushnell. Dennis is busy with many issues so I think this leaves Zawodny the only full time investigator, and IIUC, his investigations are theoretical--they're not building any hardware I know of. So don't look to NASA for empirical study/validation.

Parallel, I think you misunderstand your position here. It won't matter what sort of evidence you present for most of the people here. The Rowan study was all the things the people here say they want to see, and yet, they ignore this and pretend there's nothing there. It must be obvious to you, that given the Rowan study was open science for 2 years, and anyone who wished could go to Rowan and see for themselves what was being done, that these same sorts of objections people raise will be raised no matter who does the testing. We see precisely the same sort of knee jerk response to Jim Woodward's work. Arguing about resolution and experimental error with people who are not acquainted with the test systems in use, is simply banging your head against the wall. Won't do a bit of good in this crowd. You need to understand, even when a reputable educational institution does a replication and publishes report, with half a dozen PhD's signing off that all the tests were credible, people here refuse to admit they're credible. That's the way blogs are. Only peer review requires critics to act responsibly.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:24 pm

GIThruster,
I agree. As I said, it looks like they are proving Rossi right when he said the only proof they will accept is sale of commercial items that work. And, tomclarke probably won't even accept that

There are, what? a thousand peer reviewed papers claiming anomalous heat .

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:38 pm

That's why verifying the kev gamma reports seems the way to go to me. Should be easy for any independent to come in and wave a Gamma-Scout at it.

Low energy gamma is blocked by many different kinds of materials. Ideally, the shielding between an E-Cat and a Brayton generator would stop the gamma from being wasted. In any case however, we need to verify the claims of kev to begin with. Second thing I'd like to see is power density up in the 10 MW/cubic meter region. That's enough for mobile applications.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:50 pm

GIThruster wrote: The Rowan study was all the things the people here say they want to see, and yet, they ignore this and pretend there's nothing there. It must be obvious to you, that given the Rowan study was open science for 2 years, and anyone who wished could go to Rowan and see for themselves what was being done, that these same sorts of objections people raise will be raised no matter who does the testing.

OK. Lets see. I've been unhappy with the Rowan studies for the following reasons. Now, maybe, you think oakthicket is an internet critic lying through his teeth? Perhaps we could check these points from source material one by one? If true, Rowan looks so far from independent as to be worthless.

oakthicket wrote: This 'announcement' by BLP is more of their usual crap. I know more about their idiotic claims than I care to and can bore you to death with the details.

Quick summary.

* Rowan University is not a leading university. It is one of only three American universities/colleges that has an undergrad chemical engineering program but no graduate program. In independent university rankings, it is tied for last in chemical engineering.

* Mills is playing it cute in that this announcement barely mentions his old buddy, Peter Jansson, who heads up the Rowan University chemical engineering department. I publicly outed the long term relationship between Mills and Jansson. They date back about ten years ago when Jansson single-handedly approved millions in grants to BLP when he was an executive at Connectiv, an electric utility. Connectiv was not impressed, fired Jansson who then remade his career by switching to academia. Any Rowan University study is NOT independent third party validation. Mills remembers his friends, and Jansson is a bosom buddy.

* A handful of folks, including myself, outed the first Rowan University validation study. They claimed unexplained excess heat generation attributed to hydrinos. They didn't consider the exothermic nature of the Nickel-Raney catalyst used in their tests. They were so embarrassed that the study was removed from public view and is not to be found today.

* BLP has been touting their 'hydrinos' for twenty years. There has been no, none, zero, nada confirmation of hydrino existence by anyone other than Mills. Yes, that includes Rowan University. The only claims are dubious spectrographic tests. There are numerous chemical tests that could be done with hydrinos (simply a lower energy level state of ordinary hydrogen), but none have ever been done.

* The Gen3 founder and owner is a BLP board member. Their 'validation' study has never been made public.

* Akridge is a real estate company. Owner, John Akridge, is a long-time personal friend of Randall Mills. He is also a major investor in Blacklight Power.

* Blacklight Power was highlighted in a book entitled Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud by Robert Park.

I could say a whole lot more. BLP issues these announcements once or twice a year and sucks in a new batch of folks who are impressed by press reports.