(Dave, my granddad is Bob, I'm Robert :) ), I would be over the moon if we had incontrovertible evidence of >COP, but with a strong grounding in and respect for the scientific method you cannot and should not ever give bold assertions a free ride without vigorous critical review the skeptics of the world won't go any easier on him than I will. Which is what I am trying to provide, and unfortunately the harder I have looked at it and the more issues I have analysed the more likely it seems that the gain = 1 hypothesis is as strong as gain >1.
Occams razor would then favour gain=1 rather than a collection of miraculously fortuitous LENR characteristics that include numerous transmutation pathways (fission and fusion of Ni and Li) without ionising radiation, or change in reaction rate as it goes from natural isotope ratios to essentially all Li6+Ni2, But my suspicions really shot through the roof after reading that Rossi bought 99% Ni62 from a commercial supplier at one point - and that is why I decided to look so hard at the physical attributes of the device (thermodynamics/hightemp materials are my forte) - to see whether it was thermodynamically unabiguous that there was gain >1. The needless ambiguity of the test raises my ire, that the power input is so clumsily measured when it would be so easy to use series resistors, triac switched single phase AC, PWM DC power supply or etc with the same electromagnetic effects within the reactor. Rossi with his resources could get someone to make such an unambiguous power supply/meter in a day - but as usual he has chosen the dark path of deliberate obfuscation. Likewise with the lack of thermocouples or proper flow calorimetry - so easy when the COP and power output are large. But back to the physical problems: -The major red flag is that of inconel heating wire temp being necessarily <1300-1350°C (and realistically probably lower) while thermography is claiming 1412°C surface temps screams out that there is a massive error in the calorimetry, rendering the claims of gain meaningless unless or until that error can be explained satisfactorily. Hopeful theories about refractories wires etc just don't stand up to practical considerations (joining them to inconel that will anyway be melted at joint, forming these horribly brittle materials, keeping them away from air). -Knowing that the alumina is translucent also opens up so many possibilities for errors - and the translucence is unknown and unquantified for the material used over the range of temperatures and for the range of wavelengths of emitted light created by hot embedded wires - claims of it not being a problem don't hold water due to the above demonstrated/known error in the reactor temperature. We have no idea how much porosity it has, how thin it is, or what surface impurities might accumulate during long term high temperature operation to alter emissivity/translucence etc. -That I have identified a likely construction for the reactor that gives the visual results seen during testing (glowing wires wrapped around inner tube, but with minimal and variable contact quenching bought on by differential thermal expansion), all encased in outer shell), with no reactor gain only increases the strength of the gain=0 hypothesis. This could all be fixed easily by Rossi releasing more details of construction - even photos of cut-open reactor or just doing a proper independent black box test with good calorimetry. But as ever he is playing games due to paranoia, perverseness or worse motives. He could have made billions by now and the world would be massively better off if he wasn't persisting in his school-boy intrigues. On 16 October 2014 12:25, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob, you appear to be too convinced that the gain is unity and are going > to great lengths to obtain that result. The testers are well respected > scientists and no one should assume that they are so easily misslead. > Besides, there are several measurements that support the fact that the COP > is greater than unity which you seem to brush off. > > I wonder about whether or not the actual temperature is correct as well, > but am in no position to prove one way or the other. The most important > observation that supports the elevated COP is the slope of output power > versus input power that they measure about their chosen operating point. I > can think of no way to fake that measurement without a dose of true magic. > And then it would be extremely difficult to understand why the measured > behavior tends to follow what my simulation predicts. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Lynn <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 11:53 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. > > Nullis in verba. :) I believe my eyes more than others words. In > finding so many potential faults with so little published information (they > had a month to investigate!!) I can only say that I am unimpressed by the > critical observational skills of the testers. If they had approached this > demo with a more critical mindset I might be more inclined to believe them. > > On 16 October 2014 11:41, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for posting your ideas. >> I hadn't seen that picture of the march 2013 reactor sitting on the scale >> with heating coils visible. >> >> Why don't we just accept that the authors of the 2014 test also know >> enough about the construction of the reactor to say that the dark bands >> align with the wires? >> >> Harry >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I wrote up my analysis of the "banding" : (Draft -- I'll rename it >>> later). >>> >>> http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014a.php >>> >>> Short answer : we don't even know whether the bright bands line up >>> with the wires, or the gaps between them. >>> >>> There are multiple explanations, which depend on the structure used to >>> hold the wires, and on the properties of everything. >>> >>> Insufficient data !!!!! >>> >>> >> >
