My final analysis of the Lugano report was not that the experiment was junk. I estimated that there was excess heat, just not as much as the Lugano team estimated by flawed thermal analysis. Actually the thermal analysis was far more flawed than simply the error in the values and use of the emissivity of the alumina. The thermal analysis was mis-formulated and not enough data was gathered to arrive at a corrected estimate. The real problem was more like that of an incandescent light bulb. Yes, the envelope has a temperature from which both radiation and convection may be calculated. However a large part of the energy of the light bulb is transmitted through the glass envelope. It is that portion of emitted energy that was transmitted through the alumina from about 0.4-2 microns wavelength that is completely missing from the analysis and probably cannot be estimated from the published data.
Calculations based solely on the revised envelope temperature, which conclude there was no excess heat due to much lower envelope temperature, are as flawed as the Lugano thermal analysis. At these temperatures, radiation is by far the dominant portion of the power flow and the transmitted portion is vital to an accurate estimate of output heat. So we may never know what the real COP was for the hotCat. If IH were to contract me to measure it, I would use the calorimeter design I am presently working toward to measure it. But building such a calorimeter is not small undertaking. Properly funded, it could be built in 1-2 months, but it may take another 2 months of test runs to produce an accurate thermal model for it (that is the hardest part). On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > Ø > > Ø Of course, differential analysis of Rossi's Lugano fuel vs. ash > is very questionable due to the likely situation of the reactor having been > pre-loaded with some materials. [This was not a Rossi "deception"; he just > didn't bother to bring up this fact, nor was he obliged to.] > > Not to quibble, Bob - since without your careful analysis of the huge > thermal measurement errors, it would not be so crystal clear that Lugano > is junk. But even if there was no obligation to be truthful vis-à-vis a > general audience, since the report was not published in a reputable > journal - one suspects that Levi and his crew are rather indignant at > being made fools by Rossi. Their reputations are soiled and they may > never live that fiasco down. > > And … as to the extent of any obligation to be honest – don’t forget that > this report was said to have been filed with USPTO in support of one of > Rossi’s applications … and possibly used by Rossi as a milestone in his > contract with his funder. Neither of them would look favorably on the > notion that it was not a deception, if that is indeed the situation. > >
