RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. Yes that is a major problem – a recollection coming months later from the memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the job – is essentially not worth very much, comparatively. Ø Ø in fact the statement in the report was ambiguous. Sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous in Levi stating that Rossi intervened remove the powder charge. How much clearer can one get? … and this is the official report – not an exculpatory memory coming months later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. in fact teh statement in the report was ambiguous. They explain that he was just present... It seems to be said by Bo Hoistad http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/ *Bo Höistad:* *“Of course we were very careful not to allow anything occult or hidden to happen, as a precaution. But the answer is no. We manipulated the ashes. Rossi was present, and he assisted in the operation.”* *Melis (or interviewer):* *“Did you choose the sample that was to be analyzed?”* *Bo Höistad:* *“Yes, of course. We picked the sample ourselves. But really, what can I say. In principle it is possible to fool anyone, if a person really has this gift.”.* *Melis (or interviewer):* *“In short, a magician or something.”* *Bo Höistad:* *“Exactly. But no, we don’t operate on that scale.”* note that the hypothesis of a general fraud is incoherent with the calorimetry protocol of Lugano, and despite the conspiracy theories, of Ferrara. the protocol allowed the physicist to install their own instruments, to check the wires, to touch the reactor, to instal thermocoupel, bolometers, IR cam, to calibrate at will... It is simply stupid to give so much control on the reactor if you give a faudulent device. Ithis is to oppose with the described unwillingness of DGT at Milano demo for ICCF18, to change the protocol. This is also different to the behavior of rossi in face of Steven Krivit who refused to change the protocol. I agree that unwillingness to accept change in instruments and protocol should raise doubt, but on the opposite abandoning control on a device is enough to prove honesty... this does not mean it is working, or well measured... but one can ruleout fraud. In that situation, fraud is eliminated, and only remain errors, failure, delusion incompetence. The secret of stage magic is to control the acts of the spectators. this is incompatible with letting them bring their instruments, touch the devices, rewire all. Whatever did the testers, they were free to do things that would reveal the tricks. the hypothesis of an error on effective emissivity, on the full spectrum, or in the IR cam bandwidth, is not to be ignored. there is nothing new and Michael McKubre raised the problems since long. the one of an upfront fraud in Lugano, and to a lesser degree in Ferrara is above what I could call extraordinary absurd in the sense of game theory, and stage magic. the clear honesty of the calorimetry protocol in Ferrara and Lugano, give good reason to eliminate the stage magic hypothesis for the isotopic shift. moreover the result is so extraordinary that a fraudster would avoid that extreme result which would and have raised skepticism. If you add the fact that Rossi did not took the ashes, this closes the speculations. Until Ferrara , the secrecy around Rossi was allowing some conspiracy theory, but now the open protocols, for Ferrara calorimetry, Lugano Calorimetry, Lugano isotopic analysis, this can be ruled out. You can add that a fraud would be an Industrial Heat act, involving Tom Darden, who have too much to loose in participating a fraud, and for who dumping IH is pocket money. If we accept experiments by Piantelli, Fralick, Nagel, Miley, and the whole LENR experimental results, E-cat have nothing extraordinary... it is just to be checked like the claim of any startup. 2015-03-07 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* *alain.coetm...@gmail.com* alain.coetm...@gmail.com Ø Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Ø non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not operate No, Alain – you did not carefully read Levi’s own statement. Please read it for yourself: Levi stated specifically on PAGE 7 of the Official report that Rossi emptied the reactor. Here is the quote from Levi: “Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. “ That is very clear wording -directly from Levi himself. Rossi extracted the powder. This eliminates any real scientific possibility to assert that the powder tested was the same as the powder extracted – since pure isotope was seen in the sample tested, and Rossi had already admitting to having purchased pure isotope (Ni-62) – which was the major part of his Patent Application. This Patent Claim for Ni-62 gives Rossi plenty of motive- to alter (“salt”) the “powder charge extraction”. The claim of isotopic shifts is even less reliable than the excess heat claim.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Eric-- I have reservations as to the some of the statements for the following reasons: 1. I take emissivity to be the ratio of specific power (energy/unit area/unit time) of all EM radiation (photons)being emitted from a SURFACE of a body at thermal equilibrium (one that is at a constant surface temperature) to a similar body with similar EM emissions and at the same SURFACE temperature and that is a black body. Thus, emissivity for alumina will be different for different temperatures, and for sure Ni fuel and/or liquid AlLiH4 may be different than alumina itself. 2. I am not at all sure that the Lugano test was ever at thermal equilibrium, because I concluded it was controlled in its reaction rate by potentially changing conditions around a sweet spot of conditions. 3. I doubt that the thermal conductivity of alumina used in the test as well as the transmission of the spectrum of EM radiation being produced at the LENR reaction through the alumina to the outside surface is well known, particularly at 1400 degrees C. 4. At best the Optiris camera can determine a spectrum of radiation being emitted from a surface and from deeper levels away from a surface. Without calibration I do not understand how the camera can determine temperature of a surface. It may be able to tell something about how a measured spectrum of EM radiation approaches the S-B prediction for a black body. I doubt the camera is 100% effective at measuring all EM frequencies, particularly those which are soft x-rays and those at the sub-infrared levels. I doubt that the alumina acts as a black body for soft x-rays. The soft x-rays may be important and be directional rather than isotropic. In summary the data of most interest to me is how the surface temperature changes with time as a function of input electrical power. This would be the best indicator of energy production over and above the electrical input. However, even observed temperature changes at a surface should be understood and predictable with a validated thermal model with appropriate geometry, heat capacity, heat sinks, exothermal chemical reactions, heat transfer coeff's. etc. The Swedes, Levi, etal., may very well be working on such a model to supplement their conclusions about excess heat from the Lugano test. Their validation of such a model will be key. They should take their time and get it right. This type of analysis is what Dave Robertson and Gigi did for the Mizuno experiment and were able to make very consistent predictions of measured temperatures. This is what I would call good engineering and will be necessary to coming up with good theory. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 11:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described in the document known as “TPR2” or Lugano Report. . . . Let me see if I can capture the growing consensus concerning the Lugano test: a.. The Lugano test reported an excess heat of 1.5 MWh over the course of a 32 day run of the HotCat. The excess heat was calculated using the output of an Optiris camera and an emissivity obtained using a single method. This emissivity was fed into the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to obtain a value for the radiated power. b.. The assumed emissivity was not adequately double-checked, e.g., using a thermocouple, a spot of refractory paint or a table of measured emissivities for various types of alumina. c.. There is reason to believe that the value that was used for the emissivity in the Lugano report was too low, leading the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to give a radiated power that was significantly higher than was actually seen in the experiment. d.. A lower radiated power, and, hence, temperature, would be consistent with other observations from the Lugano test, including a lack of failure of different components of the HotCat that might be expected at a temperature of 1400 C, which was reported by the authors. Does this capture the consensus? Does anyone disagree or have reservations about any of these statements? The authors of the Lugano test were largely the same as the ones that put together the initial third-party test for the E-Cat. Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? What does all of this say about the odd suggestion that the core of the HotCat was so hot and bright that the heating elements cast a shadow? Eric
[Vo]:How to kill a LENR Fire Bird
Dear Friends, Something strange happens just now, it is a plot to kill the Lugano test- LENR's first Fire Bird. See: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/03/defending-lenr-fire-bird.html This had to be taken more than seriously, but not too seriously It is a well organized, concerted conspiracy. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Dear Bob, and dear all, I call for review, as I don't master planck and boltzmann law, with emissivity curves. From what I've heard, what i've read on the Optris datasheet, I've made some assumption and computed few things about lugano and optris... see here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v4QYFuzSHjsEGYBXeO_5M1me9BxbdvXRQjjUiL5sJFg/pubhtml The most interesting is probably that I've concluded that the Optris is measuring something, that for a given emissivity, is simply nearly proportional to the temperature minus 217C... my reasoning is the following : Optris is an array of bolometer which measure the radiation received in the 7.5-13um wavelength window I assume it is a perfect square window then I assume the emissivity is stable over the window my computation is done by integrating the planck law over this window, for each temperature in the range... This is approximative, but it does not look very sensible over the window shape, not the number of steps the result is a curve that is nearly linear (affine), crossing zero at 217C. then start the assumption that maybe be wrong in my preview logic I assumed that emissivity was constant over the spectrum. It is clearly not true. I have few question : is the emissivity over bandwidth stable for a material ? or is the shape of the emissivity vs wavelength changing ? are the emissivity curves who state it is 0.4 at 1450C and 0.7 at 450C, in fact an effective integration of the previous curve over the planck law. practically GSVIT (as MFMP) state that emissivity over 7.5-13um is about 0.9-0.95. however maybe that for a given temperature, because much light is emitted at frequency where emissivity is low, the effective emissivity for stefan boltzmann law is much lower ? in that case, this mean that we should do the following : - assume the temperature was measured on a grey body of emissivity 0.90-0.95 by the Optris, and maybe correct the temperature accordingly. - assume that heat was radiated as for a grey body whose emissivity is described as in Lugano report (0.7-0.4) - I've no previous knowledge in that domain, so don't laugh... treat me like student ;-) 2015-03-07 18:46 GMT+01:00 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com: Eric-- I have reservations as to the some of the statements for the following reasons: 1. I take emissivity to be the ratio of specific power (energy/unit area/unit time) of all EM radiation (photons)being emitted from a *SURFACE* of a body at thermal equilibrium (one that is at a constant surface temperature) to a similar body with similar EM emissions and at the same SURFACE temperature and that is a black body. Thus, emissivity for alumina will be different for different temperatures, and for sure Ni fuel and/or liquid AlLiH4 may be different than alumina itself. 2. I am not at all sure that the Lugano test was ever at thermal equilibrium, because I concluded it was controlled in its reaction rate by potentially changing conditions around a sweet spot of conditions. 3. I doubt that the thermal conductivity of alumina used in the test as well as the transmission of the spectrum of EM radiation being produced at the LENR reaction through the alumina to the outside surface is well known, particularly at 1400 degrees C. 4. At best the Optiris camera can determine a spectrum of radiation being emitted from a surface and from deeper levels away from a surface. *Without calibration* I do not understand how the camera can determine temperature of a surface. It may be able to tell something about how a measured spectrum of EM radiation approaches the S-B prediction for a black body. I doubt the camera is 100% effective at measuring all EM frequencies, particularly those which are soft x-rays and those at the sub-infrared levels. I doubt that the alumina acts as a black body for soft x-rays. The soft x-rays may be important and be directional rather than isotropic. In summary the data of most interest to me is how the surface temperature changes with time as a function of input electrical power. This would be the best indicator of energy production over and above the electrical input. However, even observed temperature changes at a surface should be understood and predictable with a *validated thermal model* with appropriate geometry, heat capacity, heat sinks, exothermal chemical reactions, heat transfer coeff's. etc. The Swedes, Levi, etal., may very well be working on such a model to supplement their conclusions about excess heat from the Lugano test. Their validation of such a model will be key. They should take their time and get it right. This type of analysis is what Dave Robertson and Gigi did for the Mizuno experiment and were able to make very consistent predictions of measured temperatures. This is what I would call good engineering and will be necessary to coming up with good theory. Bob Cook *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? Only insofar as it casts doubt on the competence of the researchers. They did not make any of these serious mistakes in the first tests. I cannot imagine why they did not use a thermocouple to calibrate the Lugano tests. Perhaps they did. I doubt it, though. They did not mention using one in the description. I asked them if they did, but they never responded. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com * Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. * non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not operate No, Alain – you did not carefully read Levi’s own statement. Please read it for yourself: Levi stated specifically on PAGE 7 of the Official report that Rossi emptied the reactor. Here is the quote from Levi: “Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. “ That is very clear wording -directly from Levi himself. Rossi extracted the powder. This eliminates any real scientific possibility to assert that the powder tested was the same as the powder extracted – since pure isotope was seen in the sample tested, and Rossi had already admitting to having purchased pure isotope (Ni-62) – which was the major part of his Patent Application. This Patent Claim for Ni-62 gives Rossi plenty of motive- to alter (“salt”) the “powder charge extraction”. The claim of isotopic shifts is even less reliable than the excess heat claim.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
https://rossiisreal.wordpress.com/2015/03/07/probability-now-9/ Have fun everyone, it's been a blast. On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* *alain.coetm...@gmail.com* alain.coetm...@gmail.com Ø Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Ø non, the testers refuted that claim. he was watching, but did not operate No, Alain – you did not carefully read Levi’s own statement. Please read it for yourself: Levi stated specifically on PAGE 7 of the Official report that Rossi emptied the reactor. Here is the quote from Levi: “Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. “ That is very clear wording -directly from Levi himself. Rossi extracted the powder. This eliminates any real scientific possibility to assert that the powder tested was the same as the powder extracted – since pure isotope was seen in the sample tested, and Rossi had already admitting to having purchased pure isotope (Ni-62) – which was the major part of his Patent Application. This Patent Claim for Ni-62 gives Rossi plenty of motive- to alter (“salt”) the “powder charge extraction”. The claim of isotopic shifts is even less reliable than the excess heat claim.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. non, the testers refuted that calim. he was watching, but did not operate 2015-03-07 1:45 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* Bob Cook Jones-- What about Levi's Ni isotopic changes? Does your 1COP2 fit with those observations, which seem to suggest more than your f/H idea? Or were both of Levi's isotopic analyses incorrect as well? Bob, Well - the analyses were correct, insofar as you do not look deeper. However, I am fully convinced that there were no real isotopic changes. Rossi had physical control of the samples which were tested. Enough said.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with freedom to test anything on it. This happened also in Ferrara. this alone rule out fraud. once you rule out fraud on the calorimetry, you know that at least IH think it's reactor works. The hypothesis og isotope manipulation is not credible, both because it was too much to look real (really challenging), and because it is not important compared to the calorimetry now that the physicist made mistake or that the reactor was not hot enough or was broken is another story... clearly possible. what give me hope is that the calibration at 450C matched the model, ruling out the 0.90 emissivity theory... 2015-03-07 19:43 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. Yes that is a major problem – a recollection coming months later from the memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the job – is essentially not worth very much, comparatively. Ø Ø in fact the statement in the report was ambiguous. Sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous in Levi stating that Rossi intervened remove the powder charge. How much clearer can one get? … and this is the official report – not an exculpatory memory coming months later. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: See: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/ See also: https://docs.google.com/a/node.io/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/edit http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/08/alumina-emissivity-and-the-lugano-e-cat-test-bob-higgins/ It seems Bob Higgins was studying the emissivity question at the same time as the GSVIT folks and came to a similar conclusion. From his paper: I.E. the radiant power is estimated to be approximately 47% lower than the value calculated by the Lugano experimenters for A. Rossi’s reactor. However, the actual power may prove to be higher with proper accounting for the emission of the heater coil in transmission through the alumina below 4 μm. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
This experiment was never independent and there never was freedom to test samples without permission. Fraud cannot be ruled out. The only good thing that came out of it was Parkhomov’s experiment and others in progress which we will hear more about soon. Patience, Peter, patience. Rossi had control of the fuel on both loading and unloading. Levi says this specifically. No testing was done without Rossi first handing the samples, and providing the samples to testers and agreeing to the test. Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue revolves around his honesty. Any scientific appraisal of the Lugano report must weigh the issue of personal integrity and motivation to deceive, which as you say – is rather obvious. From: torulf.gr...@bredband.net There are still a possible fraud in isotopes in purpose to mislead competitors. Alain Sepeda wrote: this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with freedom to test anything on it. This happened also in Ferrara. this alone rule out fraud.
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
There are still a possible fraud in isotopes in purpose to mislead competitors. On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 21:46:45 +0100, Alain Sepeda wrote: this does not change the fact that Industrial Heat gave a reactor with freedom to test anything on it. This happened also in Ferrara. this alone rule out fraud. once you rule out fraud on the calorimetry, you know that at least IH think it's reactor works. The hypothesis og isotope manipulation is not credible, both because it was too much to look real (really challenging), and because it is not important compared to the calorimetry now that the physicist made mistake or that the reactor was not hot enough or was broken is another story... clearly possible. what give me hope is that the calibration at 450C matched the model, ruling out the 0.90 emissivity theory... 2015-03-07 19:43 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene : FROM: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [2] Ø the statement I refer to were not in the report, but were specific answer given later. Yes that is a major problem - a recollection coming months later from the memory of an embarrassed scientist who had already been caught napping on the job - is essentially not worth very much, comparatively. Ø Ø in fact the statement in the report was ambiguous. Sorry, but there is nothing ambiguous in Levi stating that Rossi intervened remove the powder charge. How much clearer can one get? … and this is the official report - not an exculpatory memory coming months later. Jones Links: -- [1] mailto:jone...@pacbell.net [2] mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Since Rossi was in control at the critical points – the fraud issue revolves around his honesty. What you say is true. But in applying this standard, it seems we are going well beyond the kind of protocol that academic scientists would apply to themselves. We are using a standard that one would use with someone who cannot be trusted. We are not using a standard that would be used between academic colleagues in order to maintain scientific independence. Eric
