Hmmmm. Kind of sounds like the Space Shuttle, no?parallel wrote:Why do you say "which all appraisals (of the aerodrome) would have have expected was the better choice" (unless you always expect government to get it wrong)?
The wing structure was truly pathetic. Clearly he never carried out the most elementary load tests. There was no provision for lateral control, like wing warping or ailerons. It was designed to land on water and be rebuilt after every flight.
10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
No, tomclarcke, measurament and further calculation error caused by device with 2% error can not be more than 8%.tomclarke wrote:OK. So your (or Rossi's?) definition of validation is an experiment which does not show excess heat beyond experimental error? That explains a lot!
As 0.98^4=0.92236816 and 1.02^4=1.08243216
While in that article "experimentators-certificators" write:
And (13.39-9.0033)/13.39*100%=32.76%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.
And this ambiguity can be explained only by conceptual error in experiment planning instead of measurements error.
According to one of several versions Rossi said that it was for use, and multiple were bought, then only one, then none, then one again...Joseph Chikva wrote:As I understand he sure that one of USA large military contractors bought Rossi's device for testing and not for usage.ladajo wrote:Says you.The military don't need UL certification.
If it plugs in, it must be UL rated, by instruction.
Granted Rossikit, if it were real would be "installed" equipment, and follow further rules. Be it weapons systems, engineering, or whatever, it still must comply with industry standards such as ANSI, IEEE, etc. of which many are also codified in MILSTDs. And in fact, MILSTDs as a whole, are more restrictive than civilian counterparts due to them being intended to address a normative harsher operating environ and requirements. But they meet the baseline ANSI or whatever counter parts.
And, for the record, the Navy also complies with OHSA requirements.
You are speaking of something you do not know, and by doing so perpetuating yet another Rossimyth.
In any event, they are built to Standards. Even if the Standard is a draft like for example happens all the time in IEEE world.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
OK, I know it is 8. something which I approximated to 10. Mea culpa. In any case it is very unclear how accurate is this IR camera at measuring surface temperature. You'd need to look in detail at the camera spec, and do a sensitivity analysis. then you'd need to check it was properly calibrated...Joseph Chikva wrote:No, tomclarcke, measurament and further calculation error caused by device with 2% error can not be more than 8%.tomclarke wrote:OK. So your (or Rossi's?) definition of validation is an experiment which does not show excess heat beyond experimental error? That explains a lot!
As 0.98^4=0.92236816 and 1.02^4=1.08243216
While in that article "experimentators-certificators" write:And (13.39-9.0033)/13.39*100%=32.76%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.
And this ambiguity can be explained only by conceptual error in experiment planning instead of measurements error.
But to be fair the report makes two "assumptions" and calculates different results from each. I disagree with the assumptions (meant to be worst case approximations) because it seems to me that the math is wrong. (Sum of inner + outer area can't be right - calculations to infer power out from temperature neglect fact that radiation is absorbed by any surface as well as emitted).
But I have not looked at it very closely, there are too many other ridiculous aspects of this.
hardly news...
Wait for more talk about snakes from Rossi.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.
tomclarke,
I note your eyes are still firmly closed.
Rossi writes:
Andrea Rossi
September 9th, 2012 at 6:07 PM
Dear Brian:
It is necessary that I repeat the following statement:
THE HOT CAT ( REACTOR AT HIGH TEMPERATURE) HAS NOT BEEN YET VALIDATED, BECAUSE THE TESTS AND THE MEASUREMENTS HAVE STILL TO BE COMPLETED, AND TO COMPLETE THEM WILL BE NECESSARY AT LEAST 2-3 MORE MONTHS. I SAID THIS IN MY REPORT IN ZURICH AND I REPEAT THIS HERE.
THE PROFESSORS AND ENGINEERS WHO ARE MAKING THESE TESTS ARE SPECIALISTS AND THEIR WORK IS COMPLEX. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ENERGY CONSUMED HAS TO BE MADE IN A WAY THAT IS BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, SO NOW WE ARE REPEATING THE MEASUREMENTS USING A VARIAC TO AVOID THAT ENERGY USED BY THE RESISTANCES IS NOT MEASURED BY THE VOLTMETER AND THE AMPEROMETER ( THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE MANY ISSUES THAT ARE UNDER PROBE). THEREFORE IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO USE THE EXPRESSION ” THE ENGINEERS WHO PERFORMED THE PUBLISHED VALIDATION”, WHILE IS CORRECT THE EXPRESSION ” THE PROFESSORS AND THE ENGINEERS WHO ARE PERFORMING THE VALIDATION IN COURSE”.
THE FINAL RESULTS WILL BE PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC MAGAZINE ONLY AFTER THE VALIDATION WILL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
I AM RECEIVING FROM MANY PERSONS THIS QUESTION: ” IS IT POSSIBLE TO INVEST IN THE HOT CAT”? MY ANSWER IS: NO, IT IS NOT, BECAUSE THE REACTOR FOR HIGH TEMPERATURES IS NOT READY, IS NOT AS PRODUCT, IS A PROTOTYPE SUBJECT TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND I WANT NOT TO PUT ANYBODY AT RISK BEFORE THE HOT CAT IS NOT YET A PRODUCT. OF COURSE I BELIEVE IN IT, I AM INVESTING MY MONEY IN IT, BUT I WANT NOT TO PLAY FOOT BALL WITH THE BONES OF THE OTHERS.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
I note your eyes are still firmly closed.
Rossi writes:
Andrea Rossi
September 9th, 2012 at 6:07 PM
Dear Brian:
It is necessary that I repeat the following statement:
THE HOT CAT ( REACTOR AT HIGH TEMPERATURE) HAS NOT BEEN YET VALIDATED, BECAUSE THE TESTS AND THE MEASUREMENTS HAVE STILL TO BE COMPLETED, AND TO COMPLETE THEM WILL BE NECESSARY AT LEAST 2-3 MORE MONTHS. I SAID THIS IN MY REPORT IN ZURICH AND I REPEAT THIS HERE.
THE PROFESSORS AND ENGINEERS WHO ARE MAKING THESE TESTS ARE SPECIALISTS AND THEIR WORK IS COMPLEX. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ENERGY CONSUMED HAS TO BE MADE IN A WAY THAT IS BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, SO NOW WE ARE REPEATING THE MEASUREMENTS USING A VARIAC TO AVOID THAT ENERGY USED BY THE RESISTANCES IS NOT MEASURED BY THE VOLTMETER AND THE AMPEROMETER ( THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE MANY ISSUES THAT ARE UNDER PROBE). THEREFORE IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO USE THE EXPRESSION ” THE ENGINEERS WHO PERFORMED THE PUBLISHED VALIDATION”, WHILE IS CORRECT THE EXPRESSION ” THE PROFESSORS AND THE ENGINEERS WHO ARE PERFORMING THE VALIDATION IN COURSE”.
THE FINAL RESULTS WILL BE PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC MAGAZINE ONLY AFTER THE VALIDATION WILL HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
I AM RECEIVING FROM MANY PERSONS THIS QUESTION: ” IS IT POSSIBLE TO INVEST IN THE HOT CAT”? MY ANSWER IS: NO, IT IS NOT, BECAUSE THE REACTOR FOR HIGH TEMPERATURES IS NOT READY, IS NOT AS PRODUCT, IS A PROTOTYPE SUBJECT TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND I WANT NOT TO PUT ANYBODY AT RISK BEFORE THE HOT CAT IS NOT YET A PRODUCT. OF COURSE I BELIEVE IN IT, I AM INVESTING MY MONEY IN IT, BUT I WANT NOT TO PLAY FOOT BALL WITH THE BONES OF THE OTHERS.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi
From http://www.e-catworld.com
Report from Zurich Conference Attendee
September 10, 2012
The following report has been submitted by E. Günther who attended this weekend’s E-Cat Conference in Zurich. Many thanks!
1) Many interesting people from different areas there. Quite some interested physicists like me but even more with less scientific but more business interest. Also there was a slight touch of esoterism. Of course rossi is on the way of becoming sort of a Messiah for all suppressed scientists (and those who think they are or are for a reason
). A hand full of reporters, quite some representatives from large organisations or consortium.
2) Going through the talks and summarizing:
a) On day one the only enlightened was the Rossi talk. Even though is was quite the opposite of packed with facts, I was interesting to see that the repot about the hot cat was done very carefully to not give any hold to criticism. I hope the report is the scientific coming out for Rossi.
b) Day two started with the Rossi discussion. From the scientific point of view my colleagues and my question was the most enlightening moment of the discussion and may be for the weekend: 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. 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”.
Everyone laughed. Hard to say if he just had a moment of insight or he already did this measurement and found exactly that and did not want to comment on it.
Other interesting remarks were about scaling: “Just stack them”, about hot-cat: “Within Month”, about tests: “wait for reports or buy and test yourself”.
c) Dr. Hans Weber held an interesting talk about converting heat. I have to check the physics first before I comment on it. His idea seems appealing. Quantisizing the entropy. His experiment would be both: A simple proof of this idea and a highly effective and cheap way to convert heat to electrical energy.
d) The talk of William donavan and Roger Green was an example of good research. They had Rossi’s attention 100%. Rossi will work with them on desalination and water purification.
3) To conclude for me: I am now pretty convinced that Rossi has what he claims. I wasn’t before. Rossi is now open about his theoretical unawareness of the physics. But all his data he published fits with what other more scientific groups found. Him being so covered became much more logic to me. First he had to look to not become a too big target of very powerful organisations. Second, from him being obviously not sure about what is happening I conclude that his devices are
likely even much simpler than expected. Every information might have set someone one in front of the race, especially if it is someone who understands the underlying physics better. So you can go though Rossi’s last 2 years and will find that from that point of view he acted very smart indeed: Nobody believed him or at least not to a level to destroy or copy him. Diversion is a smart move.
Report from Zurich Conference Attendee
September 10, 2012
The following report has been submitted by E. Günther who attended this weekend’s E-Cat Conference in Zurich. Many thanks!
1) Many interesting people from different areas there. Quite some interested physicists like me but even more with less scientific but more business interest. Also there was a slight touch of esoterism. Of course rossi is on the way of becoming sort of a Messiah for all suppressed scientists (and those who think they are or are for a reason
). A hand full of reporters, quite some representatives from large organisations or consortium.2) Going through the talks and summarizing:
a) On day one the only enlightened was the Rossi talk. Even though is was quite the opposite of packed with facts, I was interesting to see that the repot about the hot cat was done very carefully to not give any hold to criticism. I hope the report is the scientific coming out for Rossi.
b) Day two started with the Rossi discussion. From the scientific point of view my colleagues and my question was the most enlightening moment of the discussion and may be for the weekend: 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. 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”.
Everyone laughed. Hard to say if he just had a moment of insight or he already did this measurement and found exactly that and did not want to comment on it.
Other interesting remarks were about scaling: “Just stack them”, about hot-cat: “Within Month”, about tests: “wait for reports or buy and test yourself”.
c) Dr. Hans Weber held an interesting talk about converting heat. I have to check the physics first before I comment on it. His idea seems appealing. Quantisizing the entropy. His experiment would be both: A simple proof of this idea and a highly effective and cheap way to convert heat to electrical energy.
d) The talk of William donavan and Roger Green was an example of good research. They had Rossi’s attention 100%. Rossi will work with them on desalination and water purification.
3) To conclude for me: I am now pretty convinced that Rossi has what he claims. I wasn’t before. Rossi is now open about his theoretical unawareness of the physics. But all his data he published fits with what other more scientific groups found. Him being so covered became much more logic to me. First he had to look to not become a too big target of very powerful organisations. Second, from him being obviously not sure about what is happening I conclude that his devices are
likely even much simpler than expected. Every information might have set someone one in front of the race, especially if it is someone who understands the underlying physics better. So you can go though Rossi’s last 2 years and will find that from that point of view he acted very smart indeed: Nobody believed him or at least not to a level to destroy or copy him. Diversion is a smart move.
tomclarke,
edit added.
"LENR doesn't work - it is all measurement error. Tomclarke."
Optris industrial pyrometers, depending on model, appear to have a resolution of 0.1C and a claimed accuracy of 0.3% See http://www.optris.com/pyrometers-compact-seriesit is very unclear how accurate is this IR camera at measuring surface temperature. You'd need to look in detail at the camera spec, and do a sensitivity analysis. then you'd need to check it was properly calibrated...
edit added.
"LENR doesn't work - it is all measurement error. Tomclarke."
Last edited by parallel on Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... 535258.ece
The problem with this is that Rossi's input power measurements were 2-3 times lower than what the Swedes measured. So have to be extremely dubious about the earlier hot-cat results he reported over the weekend where he had a COP of 2-3.
How could anyone trust Rossi after this?
The problem with this is that Rossi's input power measurements were 2-3 times lower than what the Swedes measured. So have to be extremely dubious about the earlier hot-cat results he reported over the weekend where he had a COP of 2-3.
How could anyone trust Rossi after this?
Resolution is irrelevant to accuracy.parallel wrote:tomclarke,Optris industrial pyrometers, depending on model, appear to have a resolution of 0.1C and a claimed accuracy of 0.3% See http://www.optris.com/pyrometers-compact-seriesit is very unclear how accurate is this IR camera at measuring surface temperature. You'd need to look in detail at the camera spec, and do a sensitivity analysis. then you'd need to check it was properly calibrated...
I read their product brochure http://www.optris.com/infrared-cameras? ... ochure.pdf and on page 7 it claimed +/-2% accuracy or +/-2K for the PI160. At 1000K that would be +/-20K.
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
Relevant or irellevant, but reading the article provided by you: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high- ... published/parallel wrote:If you think resolution is irrelevant to accuracy you are more stupid than I thought.
we can see at page 7:
Measuring setup
Optics PI 160 infrared camera …………………… Precision: 2% of measured value
And it is more than on order of magnitude lower than gained by them error 32%.
So, that is rubish experiment regardless to how precise can be measurement of temperature by thermal cameras. Experiment was wrongly planned. While article looks like scientifically due to nice plots.
Also, for your reference, estimation of internal energy or released power by measurement of outer temperature should be based on assumption that temperature distribution inside body is uniform. Or in common case (but this is very complicate) you should know the function of temperature distribution. Experiment does not provide idea how temperature is distributed in device.
Also, seeing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46EVV0di3Zw
we see that young man says that Rossi was agree only on neutron radiation measuring and was not agreed to measure gamma. Why? I assume that measuring gamma (photonic radiation) "certificators" would easily discover non uniform distribution of temperature.
Last edited by Joseph Chikva on Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sorry parallel. Robl is not stupid.parallel wrote:The figures I gave are from page 22 of the 40 page pdf file "Optris Product Brochure."
If you think resolution is irrelevant to accuracy you are more stupid than I thought.
Resolution is completly irrelevant to accuracy except that quantisation error means acuracy can never be better than resolution. But normally, as here, it is much worse, so that one proviso is irrelevant!
So it looks like my 10% (sorry 8.243%) was correct, since P ~ T^4.
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? 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.
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? 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.