LENR Is Real

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:32 pm

tomclarke wrote:I've linked - in the post you reply to - a note I wrote containing all the workings, and the code to generate the numbers. It references all my sources and is self-contained. There are a few typos etc, and the (long) section on "other errors" is maybe a bit ropey. But the 1.07 COP bit is pretty simple.

It is not a matter of belief - but of examining the math and the numerical calculation. I'll be happy to correct it if you find mistakes.


As stated in the Lagano report, when the temperature of the reactor was in the 1000C to 1100C range, the power supply was increased by slightly more than 100 W. The effect of raising power input was an increase in power emission of about 700 W.

Such a measurment is a realitive power measurment not subject to temperature calibation errors. In that high reactor temperature range, its COP was 7.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:55 pm

The Report calculated power out depends on the calculated temperature, which is wrong.

When you correct the calculated temperature, you find the calculated power out rises proportional to the input with a COP of 1.07. this is well within errors.

The authors calculated temperature much more dependent on input power than is really true because they did not use the correct band emissivity to determine temperature, but instead used total emissivity. Band radiance varies relatively more slowly with temperature than total radiance, hence this error has a big and nonlinear effect on the calculated power. You assume (as I did at first) that this correction would cancel, and also that this correction could not produce the change in output power. It does not cancel. Further - and this surprised me - it exactly explains the observed difference in output power. I was not expecting it to match so well!

When you change the various parameters that are not precisely known the COP changes, but the COP for the two difference temperatures stay equal to within about 1%. This is good validation that the apparent acceleration in power production is an artifact of the incorrect calculation.

Done correctly total emissivity is used to determine power from temperature. The temperature however is much lower than they claim.

Please read my clear (I hope) analysis (with equations) and refer to what in that you do not agree with? If you run the code it will generate answers over a range of the "could be changed" parameters. You will see the takehome stays the same.
Last edited by tomclarke on Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:13 pm

It seems no-one wants to read the entire thing, so let me summarise the mistake made by the Lugano report authors. They made a few other mistakes, like not having a control, or following manufacturer guidelines by checking emissivity with independently measured temperature, either of which would have got them out of their hole.

They realised correctly that life would be complex because Al2O3 has a temperature-dependent emissivity, and this alters the real temperature for a given radiant power measured by the camera.

They incorrectly (because the Optris manual does not explicitly distinguish) thought that "emissivity" meant "total emissivity" e.g. ratoi of total radiance to that from perfect BB at same temperature.

In fact, obviously when you think about it, emissivity means the same thing for the IR band over which the Optris camera is sensitive (7um-13um).

So the adjustment needed is to work out from their (wrong) input emissivity and the Optris calculated temperature what was the radiant power, and then what would be the temperature needed to generate that radiant power in the Optris band given the band emissivity of 0.95.

One further point, emissivity enters into the power calculation in two different ways. Band emissivity alters what temperature the camera is seeing for a given band radiant power. Total emissivity then scales the actual power emitted at this temperature. You need to keep the temperature calculation from the Optris band radiance, and the total power calculation from the temperature, separate.

It is not completely simple, which is why I've written out the derivation, as well as given the code I use to calculate the answer.

Bottom line - experiments are difficult - more difficult when you use silly indirect methods of power estimation like this and then avoid doing cross-checks with a control.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:25 pm

Axil wrote:the power supply was increased by slightly more than 100 W. The effect of raising power input was an increase in power emission of about 700 W.

Such a measurment is a realitive power measurment not subject to temperature calibation errors. In that high reactor temperature range, its COP was 7.


To address your point more directly:

The X7 here comes from:
X3 is because the wrong temperature makes COP 3 when it should be 1
There remains approx X2 "acceleration".

this comes from the fact that band power scales with temperature as a low power of T, whereas total power scales with temp as T^4. If you take my code you can explore this effect.

JoeP
Posts: 519
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:10 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby JoeP » Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:43 pm

Tom, have you looked at the MFMP efforts and are they making similar errors? I see they have a control -- not sure what else is different.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:06 pm

JoeP wrote:Tom, have you looked at the MFMP efforts and are they making similar errors? I see they have a control -- not sure what else is different.


MFMP are fine, and they are measuring temperature directly.

Their problem (which they admit) is that spot temperature measurement is not a reliable way to measure heat flow. Small changes in the position of the thermocouple and/or heating wire can change the recorded temperature. I expect there are other artifacts as well. BUT MFMP will eventually get to the bottom of them.

The problem is people looking at these results and getting excited when they should not.

BTW the Songsheng Jiang's data is clearly bogus. He assumes the inner thermocouple is broken, when it reads almost the same as the outer (next to heater) one. The middle thermocouple - which is clearly set to wrong gain - then reads a wildly different temperature from which he infers that the inner one is broken and the core is generating high LENR temperatures.

These replications are all of an original that showed no excess heat. Parkhomov's apparent positive is very suspect because he has not been able to replicate it and instead moved to less accurate measurement.

Ever wonder why so many of these excess heat experiments use ways of estimating heat flow that are indirect and subject to artifacts?
Last edited by tomclarke on Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:53 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5b5qeZZmBo

Upcoming MFMP heat measurment methods

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:33 pm

Axil wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5b5qeZZmBo

Upcoming MFMP heat measurment methods


You would think that flow calorimetry was pretty well bulltet proof. MFMP have done it before and will do it well enough.

Other LENR people manage to muck up even flow caloimetry:

Rossi: wrongly placed thermocouple, insufficient deltaT, too great deltaT (and wet phase change)
Mizuno: neglecting power from pump
DGT: flow meter that does not work for low flow rates and is spoofable

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Axil » Sun Jun 07, 2015 7:50 pm

A calibrated ghosted dummy reactor driven by the same power source seems like a good way to show overunity power production no matter where the heat sensors are placed as was done in the last MFMP test.

Opinion?

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:05 pm

Axil wrote:A calibrated ghosted dummy reactor driven by the same power source seems like a good way to show overunity power production no matter where the heat sensors are placed as was done in the last MFMP test.

Opinion?


It is terrible:
Spot measurement is unreliable if:
(1) thermal charactersitics of device change
(2) TC is placed in high thermal gradient

With such a design I would use TCs and IR thermometry (good at detecting thermal deltas on surface)
I would ensure TCs are placed in volume of guaranteed low thermal gradient
I would find some way to check for TC contamination.

Then, in spite of the flakiness of the basic method, it would be OK.

Giorgio
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:54 am

tomclarke wrote:Other LENR people manage to muck up even flow caloimetry:

Rossi: wrongly placed thermocouple, insufficient deltaT, too great deltaT (and wet phase change)
Mizuno: neglecting power from pump
DGT: flow meter that does not work for low flow rates and is spoofable


And now we have the "Air Flow Calorimetry" coming from MFMP........
Instead of investing their last two years of work into this error prone system they could have invested their time in preparing a proper calorimetry bath.

Anyhow, it seems to me is that all these replicators are voluntary avoiding the simplest method to measure a potential heat excess just to avoid self delusional situations.


By the way Tom, your paper was very well written. Why don't you submit it to Arxiv?
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Mon Jun 08, 2015 7:31 am

Thanks Giorgio,

I should note (and do in the paper) that there is almost nothing original. Others as you know have made the points I made though not followed through with the calculations.

Arxiv is for papers that will be published elsewhere. I can't see my comment getting published anywhere unless the original does, and I rather doubt it will. However, if the original gets published anywhere I will certainly publish in Arxiv and submit it as a comment in the same journal.

There is still a bit of cleaning up needed - I think the Wye/Delta stuff may be wrong for example - maybe I would publish deleting the more complex bits and leaving the basic thermography recalculations.

The result here should be of significance to believers. The fact that the two different temperatures show identical COP is true regardless how you slice it and makes it very unlikely there is some exothermic termperature-dependent reaction. That, combined with the Ni isotopic changes that imply (on mass balance basis) very large excess heat (equivalent to COP=10) gives a strong scientific proof that Rossi is not playing fair and substituted the ash or fuel.

I know there is plentiful other evidence of this - ladajo did a good job of marshalling it. For me, ash substitution cannot be explained away as incompetence, wishful thinking, confusion of tenses and is thus particularly strong evidence that Rossi is deliberately faking results.

Since it is pretty obvious he has been doing this from the 15 demos all with different positive errors that makes me happy.

"Air flow calorimetry"? I have not been paying attention. MFMP choosing obviously flawed calorimetry methods does not look good to me. To be fair, I can see why they want this due to the flakiness of spot temperature measurements. This is flakey in a different way.

In their shoes, if unable to do proper flow calorimetry, I would do control/active measurement with IR thermography. I'd have an inner liner so that the same outer tubes could be used twice once as control, once as active. Each run would compare control and active, and a subsequent run would swap round which is which to detect differences in outer thermal characteristics. I'd insert a control liner, with similar thermal characteristics to the fuelled liner, and check top and bottom for any differences from changes in thermal resistance across reactor due to the fuel. That would be pretty bomb-proof.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:00 am

Here is how I think it works with Rossi.

(1) He convinces himself that he has something that works, even though he knows it does not. (People are like that). He justifies ash substitution etc as doing what it takes to get funding for world-saving tech. He works to "optimise" the effect.

or

(2) He is a good actor, and is having fun laughing at all his followers.

It says something for his skill that I cannot tell which.

birchoff
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby birchoff » Mon Jun 08, 2015 1:25 pm

tomclarke wrote:Here is how I think it works with Rossi.

(1) He convinces himself that he has something that works, even though he knows it does not. (People are like that). He justifies ash substitution etc as doing what it takes to get funding for world-saving tech. He works to "optimise" the effect.

or

(2) He is a good actor, and is having fun laughing at all his followers.

It says something for his skill that I cannot tell which.


For the sake of completeness, why is the third option below left out

(3) Rossi has stumbled onto a real effect and lacks the technical ability to articulate it.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby tomclarke » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:43 pm

Because:
(1) such a real effect would be extraordinary
(2) Rossi has given no evidence of anything real, and many lies

I suppose, for the sake of completeness, he could have stumbled onto something real and Nobrl Prize worthy, have faked 15 demos, none of which show it, and be a natural liar who just can't help embellishing things.

Odds on that?


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests