Did Inverted Ammeter Clamp Cause Measurement Error in Lugano Test? (Joniale)

This comment was originally posted in this thread by Joniale

It seems there is an error in the ECAT report. Could somebody confirm this?

Please, see the comments of Mats in the following article


Here a detailed explanation of the problem. If somebody with the knowledge can explain.


They are discussing about an inverted clamp that can cause the COP 3.
Please i need to know if this is destroying the report. 🙁

  • the many way to invert camps cannot be missed as the behavior of the power is illogical.
    some inversion swap active and reactive, some make it negative….

    not only it is part of classic checking, but also

    it is as stupid as saying that the car driver too a passenger seat by mistake and that this explain the accident.

    moreover Mats remind them that there is 2 powermeter who are coherent… even the curent waveforms.

    note that the increase of power from 800W to 900W is related to the temperature from 1250 to 1400.

    this argument is desperate…
    they should be ashamed to be so incompetent, and assuming that scientists were even more than they.

    It remind me Lewis and hansen who imagined that F&P had made student mistakes with stirring and recombination, while it was thei own incompetence which lead them to imagine that…

    • Bob Greenyer


      There is no need for speculation. Our intended dummy reactor will have a central heating element designed to reach at least 1425ºC or even 1800ºC. This can be done with single phase and most likely be our first test. It will be able to demonstrate what temperature a similar structure/mass/materials will reach given a defined power input. We could measure with IR cam and multiple high temperature thermocouples. Doing so would reveal the truth either way.

  • Pierre

    Anyone else with an opinion?

    • Andrew

      I dunno. Why don’t they put an electric smart meter before everything? You know the power company’s won’t let you get one watt for free…

    • Bob Greenyer


      There is no need for speculation. Our intended dummy reactor will have a central heating element designed to reach at least 1425ºC or even 1800ºC. This can be done with single phase and most likely be our first test. It will be able to demonstrate what temperature a similar structure/mass/materials will reach given a defined power input. We could measure with IR cam and multiple high temperature thermocouples. Doing so would reveal the truth either way.

      • Freethinker


        And I do very much look forward to your experiments and replications attempt. I do very much wish you to be successful. You do have my whole hearted support on this.

        With that said, it will be your setup, and it will not be what the TIP used. So in lieu of your results, the report is what is at hand, and what is criticized, and will continue to be so if MFMP do not have a successful replication.

        So in that light, I agree, lets not speculate, lets dig into the numbers we have and with logic and reasoning, confront absurd counter-claims from skeptics, and understand those not so absurd, as to how they will really impact the result of the report.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Does anybody know when the questions which have been posted at lenr forum will be submitted to the testers? It would certainly increase the acceptance of the report if they could rule out the potential problems. But they should have a chance to do it while the iron is hot.

          • DickeFix

            Giancarlo only points out that there is an rather obvious and important inconsistency in the report when it comes to input power. This is regardless of the output power or the fuel or what happens in the reactor

            If the measurement values in the report are correctly copied from the instruments, the inconsistency proves that either the power lines or the reactor coil or the measurement equipment have been changed between the dummy run and the active run.

            The most probable is that the measurement equipment was changed and not correctly setup either for the dummy or for the active reactor. Either the input power of the dummy was 3.3 times lower than measured and hence had a COP of around 3.3 or the input power of the active reactor was 3.3 times higher than measured and had a COP around 1. You decide what is most probable…

          • Freethinker

            “if the measurement values in the report are correctly copied from the
            instruments, the inconsistency proves that either the power lines or the
            reactor coil or the measurement equipment have been changed between the
            dummy run and the active run.”

            No it does not prove that. Again, the proportionality factor for the joule heating for the active reactor being applied to the dummy does not constitute “proof”, albeit a nice find. Like I said, turn it around and it may be a proxy for the COP, if you can wrap your head around the fact that the reactor works.

            The power consumption “clamp-gate” situation is way much more weaker as it is based on an image in the report to visualize the harmonics, without any time stamp, or other qualifying information where the data on the display is measured or the circumstance around it in terms of the function of the active reactor. Also OL should amount to some error messages in the data log.

            His evidence amount to basically nothing, more than a weak indication, and possibly something for the authors to clarify. Thats all.

          • Freethinker

            In spite your reconciliatory tone, you still push the narrative that there remains an “enigma”. It does not.

            Again there is no proof that any of those things you point at in any way is relevant to proving the ECAT not working. “Andrea.S” analysis is based on one photograph in the report on which he draw conclusions he cannot do. The analysis itself appear to be in order as such – I leave that verdict to those who know that instrument and the control-box better than me – but it is still so that there is nothing supporting the fact that it has any impact on the result. You do not know the situation of the picture, and constantly ignore the fact that if this was a prevalent situation it would be noticed due either errors in the data log, or the testers would be alerted to the situation when reviewing the other PCE-830.

            Again you push the proportionality of the joule heating. As enticing as this is for you as a convinced skeptic, there is a huge hole in your reasoning as you have no idea what is going on in the reactor, and how that would affect the impedance of the Inconel coil, or any other effect the reactions in core could impose on the Inconel wire.

            Yet you pretend as these counter arguments are nothing and maintain your narrative.

            And No. The COP values would not be garbage if one take into account the non Real domain, nor would it make the lack of major change in joule heat ratio for the active reactor, when increasing in power, inconsistent. As you joggle apples and bananas here, it may seem so to you, but it is not. You need to separate the dummy run from the active run in this context.

            I see nothing that changes the outcome of the report, in your and “Andrea.S” reasoning or so called “proofs”.

            But by all means. I am not the Ultimate Arbiter of the Universe on these matters. Maybe you should take it to the next level. Why don’t you and Andrea.S. contact Levi, Essén or any of the others. Send them an email.

            Who nows, maybe they will respond.

          • Ophelia Rump

            You seem to know a lot about power calculations you should see the
            Bob Greenyer comment below, and help him perform the simple calculation which will prove if there was a measurement error.
            When you have the calculation, it will settle the matter for once and for all.
            Otherwise, this bubblegum has lost it’s flavor.

            His comment starts with”Ophelia, the researchers used the stefan-boltzman law for the bulk of the power output calculation, which is the right thing to use. . .

          • Ophelia Rump

            I do not believe that is the normal channel for science.
            Perhaps we should not be so eager to open the actual inner workings of science to internet chat rooms. If a scientist finds anything worth mentioning in their opinion they can bring it forward themselves. If I were a tester I would not allow myself to be baited into a public debate with internet trolls. No good can come of it.

            Look what happened when those four professors took the low road on Ny Teknik.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It is indeed not the normal channel, but if the usual routes are blocked, looking for alternatives might be more effective than waiting until times are better. Besides, the possible implications of this test reach far beyond science. The testers made their generous offer without having been forced to do that. However, I don’t know if they have considered that they are now forced to answer. They could certainly not refer to confidentiality, as Rossi often (legitimately) does.

          • Freethinker

            “Please note, I don´t claim that the inconcistency that Giancarlo found is a proof that the E-Cat doesn´t work.”

            😀 mots people in this forum are able to read. You have fooled nobody.

            In Edit: In all fairness. I thank you for bringing the Joule heating discussion to my attention. That you did well. Nice find.

          • DickeFix

            Thank you! I want again point out that it was not my find but Giancarlos on Mats Lewans blog. He discovered this inconsistency in the paper that both the research group and the reviewers of the paper overlooked. But I still feel proud and honored for being the first to have brought this important find to your attention. 🙂

            Lets hope we soon get a response and explanation from the research team.

  • Manuel Cruz

    A mistake of such caliber would have been detected during the dummy test run, I believe.

  • Freethinker

    There have been some debate on that particular snapshot in swedish fora.

    My take is, and has been following the flow in those fora, that the OL is indicative to something not realistic regarding the photo itself. I do not know, because I do not own a PCE-830, nor was the manual or the eminent skeptic commenter able to, give information on what to expect in the data log if you see “OL” in the display of the instrument.

    1. The data log should contain error messages, indicate unreliable data.
    2. The first PCE-830 should clearly show a diff to the of the second, and this should alert the testers.
    3. The dummy setup seem not to be criticized, but if that one worked, why would there be such a problem for the active run?
    4. There is nothing qualifying the image used more than it is intended to show harmonics and waveform. Even if that would be sloppy, it is not impossible that the PCE-830 was hooked up (at any old time) to just take that picture, at the end of it all, or even before they begun.

    I cannot be completely certain however, so some info from the authors would be good to settle this. In lack of such info, I still don’t think this nullify the overall claims in the report.

    • Sanjeev

      0L may simply mean that the probe is disconnected or the phase is disconnected or no current is flowing there.
      Note that the line frequency is also 0 Hz, so I guess its not connected.

      The graph should show 3 peaks, but we see only 2.

  • Sanjeev

    Here is the PCE 830 manual :

    It does say that the clamp must be connected so that the current flows from front to back of it.
    I do not know for sure, but if reversed, it may measure the current as negative and will deduct that current from the total, thus measuring 1/3 of actual total current if all 3 phases have same amount of current flowing in them. This will make the input power also 1/3 and so the COP of 3.

    Note that the dummy test will also show a COP of 3, which did not happen. They got a COP of 1 in the dummy test. Now it can happen that in live test one of the probe got reversed, but chances of it happening are very low and chances of it happening for both the PCEs are very very low. Whether the connections were disturbed before live test can be confirmed by the team or if they recorded the footage, it will show any possible re-connections being done at that time.

    Note that this kind of error will always produce a COP of 3, not 5 or 10 or 100. Its impossible that IH did all their tests with one clamp reversed ! And never wondered why they always get a COP of 3, no matter what they do. It will give a COP of 3 even with a simple metal tube, no need of fuels or catalysts.

    I’m not sure if the PCE is supposed to put a minus sign before the current if the clamp is reversed, but this can be checked easily. We many ask for more pictures of the setup, perhaps one of them will show the clamps during live run.

    • Ophelia Rump

      They noted that there was a non-linear relationship between the input and output.
      This shoots down the consistent false COP of 3 theory.
      Also note that the COP was probably not ever precisely 3.

      ” The measured energy balance between input and output heat
      yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively.”

      “After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which
      was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W.
      Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the reactor body
      reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly
      100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The speed with which the
      temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the
      reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we
      decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W.”

      • Bob Greenyer

        Ophelia, the researchers used the stefan-boltzman law for the bulk of the power output calculation, which is the right thing to use


        this is where power is calculated as a 4th exponent of temperature. If the power input is miscalculated then it has a very non-linear effect on the calculated output. Some variation on this will be due to the Joule heating losses calculated for the wires.

        Our planned dummy reactor, which is intended to have a central heating element that can go to 1800ºC will be able to test the thermal response of an equivalent structure, made of largely equivalent material, with IR and direct thermocouple measurement.

        This would be our first experiment and will show what power has to be put in to reach a certain temperature.

        • Freethinker

          There are two observables here of significance. That is power in (Pin) and the temperature (T). The function T(Pin) is unknown – basically the ground for much of this discussion. So your ambition is in my eyes is very good.

          When it comes to the report, look at the input for the dummy to reach the temperature they get. Then extrapolate what input is required to get 1400C. As it is not very anchored in the reality, it still server as a check that there is needed an unreasonable amount of power in to achieve that temperature in the reactor, if it behaved like the dummy – i.e. not being an active reactor.

          I did some simple calculations on this in a comment a few days ago:

          e= emissivity; s=Boltzman’s constant, T= temperature [K]
          0=Ambient values;
          1=Our sought for values at 900 W
          2=Dummy values in report

          The power out is
          M= e * s * T^4 *A

          If we ask the question what temperature would 900W in input power give us, if it was a dummy – and not charge reactor (note dividing them cause s and A to disappear:

          M1/M2=(e1*T1^4 – T0^4*e0) / e2*T1^4 – T0^4*e0)

          Using that we know that for the dummy we got 183 W (table 3) giving a temp of less than 450C on average (good enough for a sanity check). The in power in this case was 486 W.

          Assuming we use 900 W into the dummy, and assume the ratio between radiated power to input power is that same in both cases, as we would assume a linear relationship between power in and power out, one could estimate what the temperature could be in the 900 W case:

          T1=[ ((M1/M2*e2*T2^4 – T0^4*) + T0^4*) / ] ^(¼)

          e0=0.64 T0= 293.16K
          e2=0.65 T2=723.16 K
          e1=0.50 (assumed as we don’t yet know the temperature)
          M1=900W and M2=486W

          Note that we do not need to involve the computed out powers here as we have a linear relationship between know power in and power out for the dummy with a known slope, and the assumption – if just being a dummy – we would have the same slope at the higher input and higher temperature. As we divide the two computed output powers in this exercise, the slope constant is canceled out and we simple need to use the input powers

          We would get a

          T1 = ((((900/486)*0.65*723.16^4 – 0.64*293.16^4) + 0.64*293.16^4)/0.50)^(¼) = 900K = 628C

          whereas with a loaded reactor we get 1400C.

          Still, it is clear, by looking simply at the radiated power, that there is way
          much more power generated in the charged reactor case compared to a
          dummy equivalent.

          Exercising the formula above and try to get 1400C, it is evident that there is some serious power in that is required for the dummy to get there.

          No, I know that this is a simple calculation, leaving out a whole lot. BUT is still an indication that pretending that the reactor is but a dummy, is wrong.

          My 25 cent. Any comment on this is welcome, as I, like the rest of you, don’t have the ulitmate answers, but is still search for those 🙂

        • Ophelia Rump

          That is excellent news for anyone interested in proving the test flawed.
          It should be a simple matter of applying the equation to show that a 100 Watt input increase would produce a 700 Watt output increase at that particular set of values.

          Produce the calculations and we can talk.

      • Omega Z


        I was curious about this also. They have extra parts.
        Having given it some thought, I have an explanation.

        If it breaks or melts down, they “Don’t” have additional Nickel powder. Test can not continue.

        • Freethinker


          No, that is what YOU get with YOUR reasoning which is flawed as it is based on unreasonable confidence in an analysis based on information with a large number of unknown parameters and conjecture.

          I do not subscribe to your conclusion.

          The only change between the dummy run and the active run was the entering of the fuel and putting the reactor under power again. This is also how it is described in the report.

          • Mats001


          • Sanjeev

            I must say very good job by DickeFix and others, there is indeed a strangeness in data regarding the joule heating part. Still it does not completely debunk the report IMHO.

            Assuming everything remains the same during the dummy and active tests except the addition of the fuel, the joule heating part should remain consistent, as we expect the same amount of current to flow through the resistors for a given setting of the triac. Unfortunately we do not have one to one correspondence, as the dummy was tested well below the Ecat’s operating temperatures. But we can extrapolate and we find that the current actually reduces when the fuel is in……..

            And that all we can say rationally from the limited data there is. The claims that they measured it wrong or clamps were inverted are mere speculations. The current can be reduced due to many factors, even due to the secret catalyst.(a speculation on my part).

            They should have tested the dummy at operating temperatures but could not as there was only one tube. They spent about 6 months in testing, studying and writing the report, yet they could not ask for a simple spare alumina tube from the billionaires IH ? How much would it cost or how much time would it take ? I will let the authors answer that.

            Anyway, I want to ask DickeFix and others two questions:

            1] How does the inverted clamp theory explain the transmutations ? Can Ni be transmuted simply by inverter an ammeter clamp ;-)?

            2] Fig 12, page 25 shows that most of the heat is coming from the red hot alumina tube not from the resistors. The resistors and actually so cold compared to the tube that they cast a shadow. We would expect that if there are no reactions taking place in the tube, the parts where resistors are should glow brightly forming a spiral of red glow along the tube. But we see the reverse. So how does inverted clamp explain this extraordinary fact ?

            If you can explain it successfully, we can close the Ecat file and go home. However, it will take a solid analysis by the testers to prove it completely. I hope they (and Rossi/IH) are listening. Ball is in their court now.

          • Omega Z

            #2 The resistors appear cooler then the reactor.

            The 1st 3rd party test, AND the 2nd 3rd party test produce the same unexplained phenomenon. The resistors appear cooler then the reactor.
            They couldn’t provide a valid answer the 1st time. I don’t expect then to this time.

          • Freethinker

            Everyone to their own opinions,

            “Still it does not completely debunk the report IMHO.”

            I’d say they are still a far way from debunking anything. The image of the PCE-830 was a sloppy thing, clearly, and clarification from the authors would be good, but it does not nullify the outcome.

            But the joule heating, as the clamping in my mind is a bogus issue, is in itself an interesting artifact from what goes on in the reactor core.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Yes, that was my conclusion. Rossi is still guarding the powder like a dragon an a Faberge egg. .

  • Mats002

    My understanding of this issue is that the root cause is a picture in the report where one instrument shows 0L. Nothing is said when or at what measurment the picture is taken. Could be a setup after the testperiod for getting a picture for the report or that instrument was just not part of the setup at that moment. Anyhow, I would like to see a comment about the picture from the authors.

    • Ophelia Rump

      If I were the authors I would ignore it unless it were presented as a formal objection to the paper. I do not know if it is or is not.

  • Ophelia Rump

    So you propose three reasons the test is could be invalid in the same way.
    1 Reversed clamps.
    2 OL indicator showing no input to device in photo displaying wave form.
    3 Generalized anxiety.(Other)

    I will sip my coffee and consider this. . .
    I would expect at a range of 600 to 900 percent output if you were correct.

  • Samiam

    I don’t know if this applies to the power calculations being done but Dr. Rossi mentioned that the resistance involved during the operation of the E-Cat was more complicated than might appear at first glance. Can anyone comment on the applicability of his statement, found here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=861&cpage=4#comment-1009467

  • LCD

    Whether or not this is a real concern is something that will continue to plague the ecat and ANY test of phenomenal behavior that cannot be independently verified by many many people.

    That’s just the way it is. Unfortunately.

  • LCD

    The testers have told myself and others that if you email them they will answer questions.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Can you ask them to release the raw data.

      • LCD

        I have

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks, Can you also ask them if they are certain the heater coils were connected in D not star – we are also trying to make sense of the waveform

        • Bob Greenyer

          Can you ask them where the type K TC sat – as these are not normally rated to 1400ºC

          • Alain Samoun

            They may have been using type B(Pt/Rh)

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thankyou for your input. We are keen to “clean room” this – that is, we should have no contact whatsoever – we need to be beyond reproach, immune from “contact contamination”.

    We would really appreciate for them to put anything useful they can into the public domain so it may be considered.

    • Omega Z

      It is the view of some that you are already “Contaminated”.
      Confirmed by the fact that you would even consider investigating the phenomenon.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        But if and since they make everything replicable, that’ll resolve it.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I did not refer to you as a troll. You were never in my thoughts in that regard. But if they open the door to you, than the door is open. You never know who else might wish to join the party.

  • Sanjeev

    I hope you have submitted your findings/objections to the authors. Please ask for raw data. Raw data never lies.

    If many people ask them to release the raw data and some photos or videos of the setup, this issue can be resolved easily.

    In case there is indeed an error, then a 3rd test can be planned, this time with true RMS meters.

  • Freethinker

    You are indeed a funny guy. 😀

    I need not explain anything to you.

    I can not authoritatively say anything about that, and you know this, as this is related to the reactor core, and is not so very well described in the report. It may also be considered outside the scope of treating the reactor as a black box.

    You simply fail to realize that you have a completely different situation when in active mode as compared to the dummy mode. You have a novel nuclear process in a blob of Ni powder at some 1260-1400C in a magnetic field, with Inconel wires being the coil heating and feeding this, having whatever characteristic it has due to doping (which is unknown). Rossi has stated that the Inconel wiring should not be regarded trivially, as it is an integral part of the reactor, and it has a non-linear behavior.

    You see the effect of non-linear behavior in the dummy mode transiting to active mode as the fuel is entered and the reactions started. So I repeat, you do NOT have the same reactor environment in the dummy mode as you have in the active reactor. Hence your comparisons of the joule heating between the two completely different contexts is not a viable comparison.

    Forget your apple and banana joggle. It does not fly.

    Again, to get those in depth answer you so badly desire, why don’t you send them an email and ask them. On this particular matter you might be stonewalled, as I think it is too close to IP matters. But the again, who knows? They just might respond.

  • Sanjeev

    So can you see any polished metal on the reactor ? I can not.
    The only metal I see is exiting out of the reactor and those are much more brighter than the tube. Exactly opposite of what you said.

    Actually I see only the tube which is heated by two things – the resistors and the fuel. Since I see only the tube, there is no question of emissivity of metal, the tube is heated by the metal inside it and therefore we are only talking about the brightness of the tube, which depends only on the emissivity and temperature of the tube.

    Clearly the temperature of the tube near the resistor wire is less than that farther from the wire, so the area where the wires are, look darker. Again, its the area of the alumina tube we are talking about, not of the metal wires, we cannot see them. I hope this is clear and you understand that your explanation is incorrect.

    May be you are thinking about something else, so please link some pictures from other places that show something like you assume (may be molten metal in a ceramic furnace? but I doubt it will support your explanation).

    If you need another example from the report, check the Fig 10 on page 15, where you can see the expected spiral pattern because its dummy tube (no fuel) and is only heated by the resistors. We see exact opposite in case of active tube (although its an IR image but its not an issue, the visible would be similar).

    If my reasoning is faulty please let me know.

  • Mcdownunder

    One successful replication and the whole argument shall fall apart

  • Sanjeev

    I have no experience in the matter of how a superheated ceramic containing a superheated metal should look to the naked eye. May be there are some peculiarities.
    But using whatever little I know about heat and light, I’m guessing that translucency will not explain it either. Assuming that the resistors are the source of heat, they are also the source of light and will shine brightly behind the translucent tube (talking only about the visible range). But we see the opposite and must suspect that they are not the main source of heat and light. E.g. in a lampshade we see the brightest area is where the bulb is, since it is the source of light. The shade is translucent and is darker.

    So for me at least, it is a puzzle and I do not buy the attempts to explain it away in any exotic way. Perhaps the experiments by MFMP will make it clear, so I will discuss it again that time.

    You are correct about the tube being opaque at IR. That should convince those who were saying that the IR camera will see it as translucent and will mess up the readings. They were wrong actually. Now the only valid objection against the report is the discrepancy in joule heating. It can bring down the whole report if not addressed by the authors.

    • Freethinker

      “Now the only valid objection against the report is the discrepancy in joule heating. It can bring down the whole report if not addressed by the authors.”

      No it wont, as it is the process in the reactor that cause the Inconel wire coil to change impedance, not from that the material in itself magically being changed but that the reactor environment is such that it affect the rat of electron or electron hole propagation in the wire – or the current.

      You cannot compare the dummy situation with the situation with the active reactor. Again, apple and bananas.

      It is simply a proxy, a reflection, of the COP that is seen.

      But by all means, it would be good to hear the authors clarify some things. But I doubt they can or will go into any depths what the joule heating is concerned as it may come to close to IP issues. Yo would want to know HOW does this happen, you see.

      • Sanjeev

        Let the authors confirm this.
        If there is indeed a drop in current when loaded with the fuel, then it will be a big clue. The most important clue actually, because it will reveal the magnetic properties of the fuel, which affect the reactance of the resistors.

  • Sanjeev

    Looks like there is another problem with the report. The color of the glowing tube does not match the usual temperature.
    http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg99121.html

    This comment by Jed Rothwell is pretty serious :

    “If the authors do not address this question and tell us what color it was,
    after a while I am going assume they made a mistake, and I am going to
    ignore this test.

    – Jed”

    • Freethinker


      With all respect for Jed, as he is doing a great and exceptional job on his lenr-canr site, and not doubt is a person with a lot of knowledge.

      The material is transparent in the visual. It is apparent from the temperature range we are talking about that red is 2-3 orders of magnitude stronger than blue wavelengths, if the core is radiating like a black body. There is also impact of the refraction in many surfaces of the Al2O3 granules. What ever bright white intensity would he expect? What intensities would that be? You have an orange/amber source in the core, shining through with ~80% transmission and that is what is seen in the snapshots.

      • Sanjeev

        I also think that the color issue is not so serious. It can look orange to a camera depending on its shutter setting or iso settings. Only the people present there can tell what color it was.

        We will know when MFMP heats up their alumina.

        • Freethinker

          … And also color dynamics settings. True, we will have some more information when MFMP start making their tests.

          But I actually think that the light seen also with the human eye, is diffuse amber, because I would assume they would mention it if it was bright white for the eye, and orange in the two pictures, then it would be worth noting. They simply state that they “glow” in figure 12.