Open Letter to the Authors of the Lugano Hot Cat Test (Peter Gluck)

The following open letter was posted by Peter Gluck on his Ego Out blog, and Vortex-l

To:
Giuseppe Levi giuseppe.levi@unibo.it
Evelyn Foschi: unknown, please convey
Tornbjorn Hartman: torbjorn.hartman@tsl.uu.se
Roland Petterson: Roland.Pettersson@kemi.uu.se
Bo Hoistadt: bo.hoistad@physics.uu.se
Lars Tegner: Lars.Tegner@angstrom.uu.se
Hanno Essen: hanno@mech.kth.se

Dear Authors,

For the sake of Science and especially for the New Paradigm of the energy source called in present Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, it is necessary to get more essential scientific data regarding the very important experiment made by you.

This is possible only via a collegial and mutually respectful dialogue with you.

I have elaborated and described the principles for organizing such a dialogue here:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/10/preparing-for-dialogue-with-authors-of.html

The impact of my proposition was minor and I have received too many thorny and Krivitized questions, unusable – therefore I have decided to write you in my own name and in the name of my Blog and to ask you the following questions:

LIST OF QUESTIONS (I stage)

1- Can you tell us more about the design of the Cell and the planning of the Test?

2- On which thermal and optical characteristics of the alumina used for the vessel, was the test based?

3- Can you give more data regarding the internal structure and the transport, transfer and transformation of matter and energy in the Cell?

4- What methods of stimulation (EM etc.) have you used to trigger the reactions?

5- In which extent the cell/process tolerates the presence of air and water?

Please remove any and all the doubts regarding the temperature of 1400C on the Cell ergo question 6 and 7:

6- How do you explain the survival (?) of Ni nanostructures in the close proximity of the melting temperature of nickel?

7- Is the device “calorimetrable” i.e. what is the effect of cooling, partial removal of excess heat?

8- Based on your two tests including the analyses of both fuel and ash what do you think about the reactions taking place?

9- Is there a complete set of analyses bound to the test- that can be used to work out understanding and theory/ies of the process?

10- -With whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm (theory)?

11- What your attitude toward replication of the test, new tests other actions in collaboration?

Please send the answers to the Blog (comments) or to peter.gluck@gmail.com
Thank you in advance,

Peter Gluck

  • Thomas Clarke

    It is dissapointing to me that this does not reference the clear inconsistency between the measured supply currents and the measured supply powers which is found in the published data.

    The measured supply powers show up as 3.3X less for the active tests than they should be, given the measured supply currents as deduced from the wire Joule heating powers (6.7W, 37W, 41W) for the dummy, 1250C active and 1400C active tests. It is reasonable to suppose the heater power to scale precisely with the wire Joule heating power since the resistivity of Inconel (or any other metallic) wire changes little with temperature.

    This is surely an anomaly that until resolved means the apparent high COP cannot be taken seriously?

    • Ophelia Rump

      If in the history of energy related inventions there is a place where amateurs do not belong, it is in the measure of output energies.

      Please give it a rest. It is not a pedestrian subject.

      Goober says hey!

      • peter gluck

        Dear Ophelia and colleagues,

        In the Open Letter it is about the first questions-set, aiming to be positive beneficial Trojan Horses- they have to break a barrier, more resistant than Coulomb’s

        I see with some frustration that the same endemic illnesses are decreasing effectiveness and efficiency at all Forums: Detailitis, Dilutitis, Disputitis and Disfocusitis.
        Peter

        • Thomas Clarke

          Personally I found looking at the report fascinating. There are many issues which, due to the lamentable and rather surprising lack of direct control data (running the dummy reactor at the same temperature as the active one) raise questions. Those prevent the data from being safe – ie from proving Rossi’s device works – but they don’t prove that it does not work.

          The Joule heating issue is interesting because unless the heating element is something very highly unusual we have proof that the device does not work.

          Luckily – if the testers have kept all the data from their active run as they say, the matter can fairly easily be resolved by looking at current and power vs temperature or time on the heat-up phase. The time resolution of 0.5hz will be more than enough for this to be done.

      • Thomas Clarke

        I’d agree. however there are a few looking at the report who are not amateurs over matters of electrical measurements. In fact while the profs might have had an electrical expert (given the anomalies I’d rather hope not) most of them from the CVs i’ve read would be expected to have no expertise in this matter.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      There is a linear relationship between the current and the electric input energy, whereas the relationship between the current and the joule heating energy is quadratic. Could that be the reason for the large differences?

      • Thomas Clarke

        No, the relationship between current and power is quadratic both as power dissipated and power emitted – as needed because energy is conserved!

        • Andreas Moraitis

          If you calculate the power on the basis of voltage and current, the relationship is linear. Only if you take the resistance as a basis value you have to use I^2.

        • Ged

          Andreas Moraitis is correct in his rebuttal to you. Total power consumption feeding the wires stays the same, but the power delivered by the wires is diminished by the power lost as Joule heating. This is known as transmission loss, and is why high voltage power lines are high voltage: increasing voltage increases the power transmitted but does not increase Joule heating. Again, this is -exactly- why our transmission lines are high voltage and not high amperage.

          See how this line of reasoning is so utterly flawed? You can increase input power all day long without touching Joule heating to a substantial degree if you jump up the voltage, and thus you the lower line loss of power due to Joule heating. But if you raise the amps, you increase the Joule heating by the square of the increase in amps.

          Let me give a concrete example. Say we have 20 Watts of input power from a 10 V, 2 A system, or 20 W[in] = 2 A * 10 V. Say we have a 1*10^-3 resistance, then our Joule heating is P = I^2 * R, which is 2^2 * 0.001 = 0.004 W[loss]. If we increase to 100 W of input power while keeping amps steady, we have: 100 W[in] = 2 A * 50 V, while Joule heating is 2^2 * 0.001 = 0.004 W[loss]. Thus, no change in Joule heating for a change in input power. But if we increase input power to 100 W by holding voltage steady, we get: 100 W[in] = 10 A * 10 V, and 10^2 * 0.001 = 0.1 W[loss]. So here, we get a big jump in Joule heating for the exact same change in input power.

          In short, you are mistaken in how you’re forming your objections about the Joule heating as we don’t know the proportion of voltage and amperage change (as far as I could see in the report) that was used to increase input power in table 7 compared to the page 14 and 20 calculations of lower input to the dummy.

    • Ged

      Do you know what you are saying? Reference the paper’s data directly if you want to discuss it. As far as I see at this point, you are parroting made up talking points.

      • Dr. Mike

        Ged,
        I believe Thomas does know what he is saying. The data he is referring to is the 6.7W “Joule heating” for the Cu wires in the calculation on page 14, and the “Joule heating” in the Cu wires for the active run in Table 7 (about 37W for the 800W run-File 2, and about 42W for the 920W run- File 7). If the 37W calculation for the Cu wire “Joule heating” in File 2 in Table 7 is correct, one would have expected the “consumption” power for File 2 to be 2683W, or about 3.3 times the reported “consumption” power reported of 799.84W. (See my arguments above why this discrepancy can not be explained by cjurrent- voltage phase shifts or a large negative coefficient temperature of resistance in the Inconel wire.) I believe the authors will be able to correct this discrepancy by reviewing their raw data.
        Dr. Mike

        • Ged

          Dr. Mike,

          Show me your calculations.

          I don’t get anything remotely like that when I run the actual Joule’s first law equation based on AC (P[ave] = I^2[rms]*R). See how Joule heating is a function of the square of current, while power consumption remains P = IV and thus a linear relationship with current?

          It seems like this fallacious argument comes from their data on page 20, where at 468 W of input, the Joule heating is 7 W. If we use this, and use the 906 W of line 16 of table 7 to say (906/486) * 7 = 13 W, then that is a 3.15 of the Joule heating reported in table 7, making the false argument that input power should have been 3.15 times higher. But that is -using a linear relationship-, while Joule’s first law is -quadratic-. In short, it’s completely wrong to say that, and to me shows a mistake of understanding of how Joule heating versus input power scales.

          Even more so, if input power is increased by increasing voltage it has very little effect on Joule heating (e.g. high voltage transmission power lines), whereas if input power was increased by raising current that jumps the Joule heating by its -square-.

          In short, you and Thomas, and others who use this argument, are flatly mistaken. Even worst, you are so utterly mistaken as we do not know what proportion of the increase of input power from the controller between the dummy and experimental run was done by increasing current or increasing voltage — the difference of which would completely change the Joule heating proportion to the input power!

          I fully trust the values they give, and have no reason not to. My running of the equations come out the same as them.

    • BuildItNow

      Measuring amps in the E-Cat circuit likely results in very inaccurate power measurements.

      You can have voltage and amps with zero power in AC systems, i.e. the type of power most people have in their house. This is possible in AC systems by having the phase relationship between the voltage and current 90 degrees apart.
      This happens, for instance, if you connect a capacitor to your power plug in your house. Current will flow, but, no power (assuming a perfect capacitor that has no internal resistance).

      The pulsed power going into the e-cat during the experiment is only on
      for a fraction of the AC cycle and off during the remainder. The current pulse can be out of phase with the voltage. The
      average current x average voltage does not equal the actual power
      averaged over cycles.

      Power measurement equipment, like that used in the E-Cat test, carefully relate the phase of the voltage to the phase of the current. Usually this is done by sampling both the voltage and the current rapidly, thousands to millions of times per second. Each measurement then gives a very accurate instantaneous power figure. The equipment then accumulates these instantaneous power measurements for several cycles to add up the total power used in these cycles, then averages it for a readout in watts. The result is a very accurate figure. Additionally, the total power used can be accumulated for months, also giving a very accurate measure of total energy used over that time.

      The equipment used in the E-Cat easily measures this type of power accurately at 50 to 60 hertz. Measuring electrical power accurately is extremely well understood especially at such low frequencies as 50 to 60 hertz. Questioning the ability of a good power meter to measure power accurately is a loosing argument that will go nowhere and will pass the peer review process every time. My credentials are a degree in electrical engineering with a focus on AC power systems with many years of experience.

      • GreenWin

        Indeed it is also a LOSING argument (not a criticism BuildIt.) Thanks for your clarification. Skeptics burdened by bias or agenda, seek to make something as simple as power appear wildly complicated. It is a basic element in JTRIG-type deception.

      • Right,
        it is true that this does not look simple.
        there are many erason for the current to look strange compared to the naive vision.

        one is that the current is dimmed, and the duty cycle may change many parameters. One is the bandwidth of the injected current, that may react with a reactive component.
        another cause of complication is that nothing says that the power is stable between the two branches of the V. the effective current may be averaged (quadratically) while it is increasing and decreasing between each branch…

        anyway the main hypothesis follow simply what Rossi have said, that the inconel alloy used , a doped conductor, is highly sensible to temperature.

        usual inconel for resistors are made not to have a strong sensibility, but rather not to have the usual bad sensibility which cause thermal runaway which increase resistance when temperature increase, increasing power, thus temperature, thus resistance…

        simply having no sensibility is enough for normal resistors.

        imagine now that Rossi use a variant which is very sensible, reducing the resistance when the temperature increase, thus stabilizing the reaction.

        it would be rational.
        Is it possible ? I don’t know doped conductors enough…
        Is it done ? it seems that is what Rossi said.

        • Dr. Mike

          AlainCo,
          Since power is deliver at a constant voltage (not a constant current), a heater wire having a large negative TCR, not a positive TCR, would be susceptible to thermal runaway.
          Dr. Mike

          • Thomas Clarke

            The resistance in the wires feediing the heater is much smaller than the heater so we have near perfect constant voltage. A NTC heater coil would in fact be disastrous for overall runaway, but would help local runaway because a small section that got hotter would therefore dissipate less power. this is why NTC materials are quite useful as heaters. It is just that the characteristics we see here are of PTC (1% increase in resistivity between 1250C andf 1400C) ove rteh operating range where NTC would be needed to provide this sort of local damping. As with all these things you need to look carefully at the numbers to get from a position of thought so free that brains drop out onto the floor to something open to possibilities but capable of analysis.

            I find there is quite a lot of brain drop out on floor type freethinking here which while no doubt fun does not progress matters!

          • right, for the whole heating element.
            NTC avoid local runaway, but cause general because of stabilised voltage, which makes the who resistor produce more heat when hotter.

            here there is a microcontrolled dimmer which stabilize temperature.
            It thus can stabilize current, or stabilize the global production of heat with thermal stabilization, avoiding the global runaway that you describe well.
            in that case, if the heat production is maintained on average, the NTC will prevent local point to runaway, and yes a global runaway have to be avoided… either by current stabilization, or temperature stabilisation…

            anyway, here the NTC is really huge. Maybe there is a misunderstanding, and this is a good question to the testers.
            Maybe also this is an LENR phenomenon, maybe linked to Type 2 superconductivity as it is observed in PdHx and NiHx hydrides when x is big. Celani and Tripodi have observed such phenomenon… at 1400C it is clearly an outlier, but LENR is an outlier.

            is it more or less probable than dumb conspiration of stupidity and blindness when installing wattmetters, plus stupidity and luck of Industrial Heat who provided a broken reactor…

        • Thomas Clarke

          The PCE-830 is good enough to deal with the harmonic of 50Hz containing most of the triac waveform power. So the testers believed and i agree.

          If the heating coils were significantly inductive that would result in lower power relative to current, both for the dummy tests and the active tests. in fact the dummy test having a lower duty cycle and therefore more power at higher frequencies would show a lower power relative to current making the anomaly worse.

          It is not possible at such low impedance for the heating coils to be capacitive below 1kHz.

          If the PCE-830 cannot resolve significant components of the power then the whole test is unsafe and results should be ignored. But, as i say, i agree with the testers on this that it is up to the job.

      • Dr. Mike

        BuildItNow,
        You are correct in that capacitive (or inductive) loads can shift the phase of the current relative to the voltage, making the phase important in the power calculation. However, what kind of load do we have in the Hot-Cat? It is almost entirely a resistive load (with a very small inductance from the coiled wire). You can not get a voltage-current phase shift in a purely resistive load!
        Let’s assume that there something in the power controller or something in hooking up a pulse generator that shifts the phase of the current relative to the voltage in the Hot-Cat set-up. This same phase shift would occur in the in the Cu wires that are connected to the Inconel heater wires. Therefore. the calculated power for the “Joule heating” in the CU wires should be proportional to same “Joule heating” in the Inconel wire. Therefore, a current- voltage phase shift can not explain the high “Joule heating” values listed in Table 7 for the active runs.
        The argument for the Inconel wire having a large negative temperature coefficient of resistance would appear to be a better explanation than a current-voltage phase shift for the Cu wire “Joule heating” not correlating to the “consumption” power in Table 7. However, the manufacturer’s specs for various types of Inconel show that all Inconels have a quite stable resistivity over their entire useful temperature range. In fact, this is a desirable feature of all types of heater wire to prevent thermal runaway which would occur in any heater wire with a large negative TCR. Also, the data from Table 7 can be used to calculate the resistance change in the Inconel wire in going from the active run at 1260C to the 1400C run. The Inconel resistance actually increases by about 1% as the temperature increases from 1260C to 1400C.
        I believe the authors will be able to look back over their data and eventually resolve the issue of the high values for the Cu wire “Joule heating” in Table 7. Also, if they release the type of Inconel used, everyone can look up the manufacturer’s specs for TCR.
        Dr. Mike

        • Thomas Clarke

          Yes. The beauty of the joule heating / total power ratio is that any linear device, resistor, capacitor, inductor, will give the same results for this ratio at different powers. Significant non-linearity in a power heating device is unheard of.

    • Dr. Mike

      Thomas,
      I agree. It certainly would have been better if the experiment had included the final 10 days running in the self sustaining mode so that a separate COP could have been calculated for this mode of operation. I am wondering if the manner in which the pulse generator was connected effected either the current or power measurements?
      Dr. Mike

      • Thomas Clarke

        The current was measured by the PCE-830 as was the power. the sampling rate should be up to resolving well the triac waveform so while you can never be certain of these things it does not look a major area of risk to me, certainly less significant than the issues over Al2O3 emissivity and transparency which I think could introduce very significant errors.

    • Freethinker

      Well, then I have to disagree.

      Comparing the dummy with the active reactor based on the joule heat data is irrelevant. You
      cannot do that. You have no idea what there is in the reactor, how the the coils (apparently doped Inconel and a proprietary alloy in addition) would behave with temperature, or how the LENR process would interact with the current.

      If anything, what you see is a proxy for the COP.

      You could ask them about that, but I seriously doubt you would get any real info as this is too close to the IP and quite far from the scope of the test, that was about testing the ECAT in a black box scenario.

      • Thomas Clarke

        The testers have the relevant information, since they have been collecting data for current (from which they calculate joule heating) and power throughout the active test. therefore correlating these values on startup would resolve the matter.

        The problem with NTC materials (e.g. extrinsic semiconductors) is that:
        (1) The testers apparently were told or could deduce that the heaters were Inconel. That was the reason they gave for not testing the dummy at higehr temperatures. Else they made a mistake in their report.
        (2) The resistivity of the material actually increases by 1% from 1250C to 1400C – absolutely typical of metal but not NTC material
        (3) The resistivity of NTC materials is high – difficult to see how a 6 ohm resistance could be derived from such material with suitably even heating of the reactor.

        Still, the testers no doubt have data that allows them to resolve this issue. There can be no conceivable IP issue in the R vs T curve for the heaters especially because little information is needed. And the testers will know that the test results are not even slightly credible while this matter is unresolved.

        (LENR process interact with current is not relevant – the current runs inside the heating wires).

        • Freethinker

          Thomas,

          I agree in so far that the full data from the active run, as the reactor heats up will give some more information, but I still maintain my position on what is currently available. You cannot deduce anything from comparing the non active with the active by evaluating the Joule heat data.

          Also,I think you are to limited in your reasoning about the impedance of the the coils in the active reactor environment. By arguing from an NTC perspective and temperature alone you – as much as you may be correct in the assertions you make – you can not be certain that e.g. magnetic field situation does not contribute in some way that will cause the current to be lower. You do not have all the information about the innards of the reactor – and the innards of the reactor does have a direct relation to the IP.

          I do find your last statement puzzling. Could you perhaps elaborate on “LENR process interact with current is not relevant – the current runs inside the heating wires”.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Perhaps you could indicate how the LENR process, without radioactivity, could interfere with electrons in wires not part of the process?

            You’d have to ignore a lot of facts to reckon that a X3 apparent change in resistance constant over temperature in the active reactor was due to insertion of magic powder, rather than some error in measurement protocol such as reversal of a single current measurement clamp – which would create such a change.

            Have you considered the logic of this? LENR is essentially magic. We don’t understand how it works. LENR reactions can therefore have any properties. Even – it seems – any anomaly in testing can be due to LENR. So we have magic proved by a power measurement that looks like a clear measurement error but is maybe not so because the magic changes electricity…

          • Freethinker

            😀

            You counter my question with another question. How very politicé of you and so much expected.

            Feel free to question my logic. I on the other hand must question yours, because in this black box test you wish to nullify the outcome based on what you do not know is going on in the reactor. You are stubbornly unable to realize the complexity of the environment, naively basing your string or arguments on only one dimensional properties of the the coils in the active reactor, and a debunked clamp argument. You are poking in things that cannot give you any information relevant to support you claims.

            Magic, indeed. I bid you good luck on this, no doubt, impossible mission.

          • bachcole

            I am reminded of that fact we have absolutely no clue how the black box of the consciousness of the human being (the most important aspect of the human being) works. Yet no one is suggesting that consciousness does not exist or that we should denigrate or ignore the intrinsic value of human beings just because we can’t figure out how it works.

          • Freethinker

            True, albeit this is a bit more tangible.

          • Thomas Clarke

            The issue is whether it works, not how it works!

          • Mike

            You got it. This is their new illegitimate argument. And they will beat that dead horse until they lose all credibility. A good book name would be, “The fall of establishment science”.

          • Thomas Clarke

            The cases are not comparable. I question the results because the data from the test is not consistent given what was stated – that the heater was Inconel. The hypothesis of a reversed clamp explains the inconsistency. Perhaps other measuring errors also do this. It is always possible the heater was something very unusual that would make these results consistent anyway. If so the stored data from the PCE-830 can prove this, as it can also show whether clamps were reversed.

            I agree that there is no certainty this is true. We have so little information. However there is also no certainty Rossi’s COP is real. Rossi’s tests have never provided clear evidence of this high COP at high power as has never been found by anyone else in the world. Clear evidence is needed exactly because this would be unprecedented.

            It is also notable that every one of his tests could have been redone more carefully to eliminate possible errors whether innocent or deliberate and make the world take notice.

          • Freethinker

            😀

            you still argue that something will nullify the claims of the report while at the same time conceding you do not have enough information to do so. “Perhaps” other measuring errors will, apart from the irrelevant inverted clamp problem.

            What good is then your reasoning? You can prove nothing. You can only cast shadows.

            There is no certainty Rossi’s COP is real?

            When it comes to the test team and IH’s claims of the COP, they have a much stronger position than you have with your line of reasoning. They point at relevant information that is presented, you point at things for which you have no relevant information, only conjecture.

            Could it be “redone more carefully”? There is no paper, no report that has ever been presented that has not made someone complain about it. It is inevitable. It is also part of the process. Also, you should perceive of this report as a preprint, as they have submitted this to Journal of Physics D. Maybe you should consider these things before expressing words as “innocent or deliberate” as though the team were gullible or corrupt individuals when in fact they are credible scientists and engineers. It exposes your thinking much more than you perhaps intended.

            But by all means, press for more data, preferably ALL raw data. I would like to have it too. But right now, they are right and you are wrong.

          • Thomas Clarke

            Freethinker,

            You have the burden of proof here wrong. The test COP could be invalid. That seems very likely, based on internal inconsistency, but I cannot prove it.

            I don’t need to “prove” the tests are wrong to make them invalid as evidence for Rossi having an extraordinary device. They were billed as, and could have been, proof that the device works.

            I have proof that the tests prove nothing. That nullifies them as far as their purpose.

            If you think about it, it is in general very difficult to prove that tests are invalid in any specific way. The number of errors is large and often there is not enough information to work out which apply.

            Science requires tests to be proven valid.

            Perhaps your confidence that Rossi has what he claims is based on a succession of tests which could not be proven not to show COP. But they can all be proven to have major flaws that make them invalid as proof. In this situation, of tests created by Rossi for the purpose of promoting his endeavours, multiple unproven tests do not add up to proof.

            My saying “innocent or deliberate” is because in this situation, with a lack of independence from some of the team members, their impartiality cannot be assumed. It is very possible, perhaps likely, they are all innocent. I have no evidence of their wrongdoing. I would certainly presume innocence of all the team members that have no prior connection with Rossi and hence emotional investment in the outcome.

            I can say that the team as a whole have not applied the level of rigor and care I would expect, and which would make criticism post hoc more difficult. This test is in many ways less rigorous than the previous one.

            It is fortunate that they have all the data needed to retrofit rigor by checking detailed measurements. I’m hoping that they will do this and at least one very glaring hole can be plugged.

          • Freethinker

            Except that there is no hole to plug, as you cannot build a viable argument that is coherent and consistent. You point out what *could* be problems that *could* cause the COP to be 1, but any such model can be build any way because for all you know e.g. there is an array of IR laser heating the back side to the reactor, and all data you look at is meaningless anyway. But that is of course not the case.

            Your cool and leveled reasoning aside, you are building your case on things that outside the scope of the test , and in the same cool manor of reasoning you are belittling the test team.

            There are two main observables that you should be concerned with, and that is the in-power and the temperature of the reactor. The authors then have a more elaborate model to describe all energy so it becomes thus more complex, but the core situation is – two observables. Not how the Joule heating can be so and so, or if the Inconel has this or that property. Things for which you have no information, or no relevant or coherent information.

            “The test COP could be invalid. That seems very likely, based on internal inconsistency, but I cannot prove it”
            “I have proof that the tests prove nothing. That nullifies them as far as their purpose..” and of course “I have no evidence of their wrongdoing.”

            So you have no proof the COP is invalid, or any wrong doing, but you do have proof that the test prove nothing. And on top of that you have the nerve to point out the obvious “Science requires tests to be proven valid.”. Why don’t you start by understanding the scope of the test?

            You, yourself, may be convinced, but you do not have proof for “that the tests prove nothing”. Why? Because you extend your judgment beyond the black box, and base your conclusion on the lack of information. And as you cannot judge, you claim the test false. But it is rather you who are in error as the test you evaluate is not the right one.

            So I wonder. Why is it necessary for you to belittle the team, insinuating they are not independent, and in the extension that they are dishonest, to claim that you can prove that the report cannot carry the claims therein? Is it perhaps so that you “know” this cannot work? You know. The same thing you accuse me of being guilty of? I wonder. What is your take on LENR as a whole?

            The core of your argument is the claimed inverted clamp, and the non relevant comparison between joule heating in the dummy and the active reactor. There is nothing for you there. You lack the logical support to say that the authors conclusions are false or that they have been unsuccessful in leading in evidence the reasonable conclusions they presented in their report.

          • Thomas Clarke

            This is a matter of probability. no-one can ever disprove that a saucer-shaped object seen is not in fact a UFO. But if you show how it could plausibly be something else you have nullified the observation as evidence for UFOs, without proving that it is not a UFO.

            People have complained about the reports because they have all had holes. For example the early steam experiment could easily have been redone with a faster flow rate and hence no steam and accurate calorimetry. That has never happened. The experiment with a small deltaT could easily be badly positined thermocoples. That could easily have been changed, etc.

            Rossi controls what testing can be done, and he has thus far, innocently or deliberately, prevented any tests that would give definite results.

            In the case of this latest experiment that may not be true. The testers have full dfata stored from the PCE-830. They can check whetehr the resistance of the heating element changes with temperature. If it does, the obvioius inconsistency in the data is removed. If it does not, there is proof of error.

            No tester worth his salt would leave this question unanswered, so I’m hoping we will shortly get the answer.

            For now, they have an experiment with a flaw that invalidates its results. Nothing is proved by anyone.

          • Freethinker

            😀 An UFO is an UFO exactly because you do not know, or can prove, what it is. It is in the very definition of the acronym, you see.

            “no-one can ever disprove that a saucer-shaped object seen is not in fact a UFO”. It equals to “no-one can disprove a known object”

            Well if you know that it is a known object (as a known object imply that there is no ambiguity), it will be hard to disprove that. Other than, of course that the grounds for it being known is wrong in itself. So if that is the core of your logic, then the question boils down to: What is the scope of the test? What relevant and coherent data do you have? Does the data make sense in relation to what I know of the process? Or even: Do I know the proceThe question is: What is the scope of the test?ss?

            But it is funny you should bring up analogies like that. UFOs. So very pathoskeptioesque.

            And who are now looking at older experiments to invalidate the latest test report? Just because you feel that you are not convinced of previous experiments does not mean that you should automatically assume the same here. But maybe you are feeling like the negative evidence is somehow cemented more each time with every new experiment … The conjectures of old, become the pillars upon where the new conjectures shall be built.

            And also your assertion of what in the raw PCE-830 will constitute “proof” of error is amazing. Again, it is outside the scope. Again you have NO clue as to what the processes going on will alter the currents and impedance of the coils. It would be very interesting to get the raw, data, I agree, but it would not help you in your line of argument, as it has nothing to do with the measurement of the observables in-power of reactor surface temperature. It would still be conjectures, unsubstantiated, because you know nothing of the process in the reactor.

            You have nothing that in any way invalidate the measurements, and nullifies the claims in the report, except your own ill founded conjectures and your lack of understanding what is the scope.

          • Mike

            Gravity is magic too. That is of course til we figure it out. duh.

    • Mark E Kitiman

      The Joule heating power in the dummy run was calculated using the standard equation for DC (Direct Current), which is acceptable when Voltage and Current are in phase.

      It is possible that the more complex equation for calculating Joule heating for AC (Alternating Current) was used to obtain the values in Table 7.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating#Alternating_current

      So an answer to Dr. Mike’s question shown below, may resolve the perceived anomaly!

      “1. Was the “Joule heating” in the Cu wires in Table 7 calculated the same as the
      dummy run…”

    • Ged

      Why would it scale linearly? If they increased the amps to increase the input power, that pumps up the Joule heating by the square of the amperage increase. But if they increased the voltage to increase the input power, Joule heating stays basically the same. So what proportion of voltage and amperage increase would give the Joule heating changes we see?

      It is Never linear, it is entirely a function of the proportion of input power that is voltage or amperage driven: and then it is the square of the amperage change times the resistance (voltage drop across) the wires.

      They are also calculating the Joule heating in this case as a power transmission loss before the resistance heating inside the reactor.

  • Dr. Mike

    Peter,

    Thanks for posting an excellent set of questions. To your list I would like to add my own
    questions that I had in my recent Post:

    1. Was the “Joule heating” in the Cu wires in Table 7 calculated the same as the
    dummy run Cu wire Joule heating on page 14? If so, does this mean that the measured
    currents during the active run that were more than twice (2.3 to 2.5 times) that of the dummy run? What type of Inconel were you using for your heater wire? Did you verify from the manufacturer’s spec on the Inconel that its temperature coefficient of resistance was very small, which means that the power delivered to the Inconel heater wires should have been nearly proportional to the square of the measured current for the entire temperature range of the experiment?

    2. How was the pulse generator electrically connected to the power controller and
    the Inconel heater wires? Shouldn’t the pulse generator be included it the Figure 4 wiring diagram?

    3. What was the estimated power input to the reactor from the pulse generator for
    the dummy run, for the ~800W active run, and for the ~920W active run?

    4. What was the procedure used to insure that the “fuel” was loaded uniformly
    within the reactor? Does the fine Ni powder stick to the alumina reactor walls, or does gravity cause the “fuel” to form a line at the lower portion of the reactor?

    5. What were the actual concentrations of the C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn in the “fuel”?

    6. Was it difficult to recover the “ash” from the reactor? Did Rossi help just because he was
    experienced in this task? Was the “ash” immediately given by Rossi to be tested by Bianchini?

    7. Who made the decision to raise the operating temperature to ~1400 oC? Was anyone concerned about random fluctuations in the temperatures of individual Ni particles causing localized melting? What did Rossi say about raising the temperature this high?

    Assuming that the authors of the Lugano report get a chance to read these comments, let me use this opportunity to thank them for their fine work.
    Dr. Mike

    • peter gluck

      Dear Mike,

      thank you your questions are both good and necessary, but not for the very fisrt ste of questions.I have expalined this in my previous writing- cited in this one. Plus if they receive too many questions at once they surely will not answer.
      my greetings,
      Peter

  • Dr. Mike

    Peter,

    Thanks for posting an excellent set of questions. To your list I would like to add my own
    questions that I had in my recent Post:

    1. Was the “Joule heating” in the Cu wires in Table 7 calculated the same as the
    dummy run Cu wire Joule heating on page 14? If so, does this mean that the measured
    currents during the active run that were more than twice (2.3 to 2.5 times) that of the dummy run? What type of Inconel were you using for your heater wire? Did you verify from the manufacturer’s spec on the Inconel that its temperature coefficient of resistance was very small, which means that the power delivered to the Inconel heater wires should have been nearly proportional to the square of the measured current for the entire temperature range of the experiment?

    2. How was the pulse generator electrically connected to the power controller and
    the Inconel heater wires? Shouldn’t the pulse generator be included it the Figure 4 wiring diagram?

    3. What was the estimated power input to the reactor from the pulse generator for
    the dummy run, for the ~800W active run, and for the ~920W active run?

    4. What was the procedure used to insure that the “fuel” was loaded uniformly
    within the reactor? Does the fine Ni powder stick to the alumina reactor walls, or does gravity cause the “fuel” to form a line at the lower portion of the reactor?

    5. What were the actual concentrations of the C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn in the “fuel”?

    6. Was it difficult to recover the “ash” from the reactor? Did Rossi help just because he was
    experienced in this task? Was the “ash” immediately given by Rossi to be tested by Bianchini?

    7. Who made the decision to raise the operating temperature to ~1400 oC? Was anyone concerned about random fluctuations in the temperatures of individual Ni particles causing localized melting? What did Rossi say about raising the temperature this high?

    Assuming that the authors of the Lugano report get a chance to read these comments, let me use this opportunity to thank them for their fine work.
    Dr. Mike

    • peter gluck

      Dear Mike,

      thank you your questions are both good and necessary, but not for the very fisrt ste of questions.I have expalined this in my previous writing- cited in this one. Plus if they receive too many questions at once they surely will not answer.
      my greetings,
      Peter

  • GreenWin

    Peter, a good set of questions. However, I expect that several questions will go unanswered simply because these scientists are not privy to the proprietary details. You should not be surprised by this as it is likely should similar questions be put to Defkalion, (with whom you are closely acquainted) they would claim proprietary interests. The same goes for Dr. McKubre who is clearly aligned with Brillouin.

    Keep in mind the Industrial Heat investors and Rossi and company have every reason to protect their intellectual property until such time as the USPTO gets honest enough to grant them a patent – or they continue to market under Trade Secret protection. Like LENR itself, it requires an input to obtain the amplified output.

    • peter gluck

      They will answer indirectly in the updates- see what says Rossi on his Blog.
      Peter

  • GreenWin

    Peter, a good set of questions. However, I expect that several questions will go unanswered simply because these scientists are not privy to the proprietary details. You should not be surprised by this as it is likely should similar questions be put to Defkalion, (with whom you are closely acquainted) they would claim proprietary interests. The same goes for Dr. McKubre who is clearly aligned with Brillouin.

    Keep in mind the Industrial Heat investors and Rossi and company have every reason to protect their intellectual property until such time as the USPTO gets honest enough to grant them a patent – or they continue to market under Trade Secret protection. Like LENR itself, it requires an input to obtain the amplified output.

    • peter gluck

      They will answer indirectly in the updates- see what says Rossi on his Blog.
      Peter

  • I wish the testers also touch down on the processes where Andrea Rossi loaded and unloaded the device with the fuel.

    Accusations have been made regarding his involvement and the powder.

    Was Rossi left alone while this process took room?

    Did the cameras in the lab cover this process?

    Was there any scientist (how many) present while this was taking room?

    Did the testers trust Rossi with this process or where they hawking on him in order to make sure he was not fiddling with the samples?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I have already tried to point out why the assumption that Rossi could have manipulated the fuel is absurd. In Rossi’s patent applications it is claimed that the reaction produces copper. But no copper has been found in the ash. Rossi would certainly have added some copper if he had manipulated the fuel. The absence of copper is a huge problem for him with regard to his negotiations with the patent office.

      • Mr. Moho

        I think this is a weak argument. This story has been dragged on for so long that, assuming the deception scenario is true, a completely new and unexpected result at this stage could help Rossi buy more time so he could claim he needs it to understand what happened.

        Anyhow, now that the IP has been acquired by Industrial Heat I think the focus should be on its managers, not Rossi. Darden and Vaughn are the ones who should be answering questions and explain what’s really going on. They don’t seem to be distancing themselves from Rossi, rather the opposite instead.

        • Ophelia Rump

          What deception scenario is that Mr. Moho. Please be explicit.
          What did he do, why did he do it, what materials could have made that possible?

          • Mr. Moho

            With deception scenario I mean one where Rossi or possibly one or more accomplices could have somehow fooled the testers into thinking that they were doing measurements correctly. It was a hypothesis for the mere sake of argument, I was not implying that’s what actually happened.

            The point I’m making is that assuming it did, one can’t keep Industrial Heat out of the equation. It’s not just about Rossi anymore. It’s very unlikely that Darden and Vaughn still don’t know whether he is telling the truth about the E-Cat or not; they just have to know either way.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes I gathered from your wording it was not an accusation which you were making. Thank you for specifying.

          • LCD

            Wow mrs O let’s turn it down a notch

          • Thomas Clarke

            It is now clear one way how the testers could have been so fooled. That has some evidence from the Joule heating/power ratio anomaly. Luckily, detailed examination of the stored PCE-830 data during the startup phase of the active test should settle the matter (for this methods at least)..

          • Heath

            And it doesnt help that Jones Beene on vortex claims that Rossi bought the same purity of NI62 from a person Jones apparently knows personally. An unproven statement that serves little other purpose than to muddy the water of the tests validity even though he is a believer in LENR. I do agree that i would like know a bit more about the ash extraction process and how it was safe guarded.

      • Mike

        Yep, that is exactly what I was thinking. But I was also thinking that Rossi may know what is different in the reactor that they didn’t get any copper..

    • Ophelia Rump

      Please specify what magic powder Rossi may have substituted to falsify the existence of the first impossible magic powder?

      • Ophelia,

        I never claimed Cold Fusion(powder) does not produces excess energy.

        As stated – I claim to have known this to be a fact for several years

        Personally, I think the composition of the pow(d)er is a different topic of excess heat measurements.

        It was discussed in many forums the thesis that N62 would be the optimal Nickel Isotope for LENR, however, as to my understanding, it was discussed from the angle that the powder would initially consist of N62, not that during the operations other Nickel Isotopes would transmute to N62.

        Also – as to my understanding of the paper, only parts of the powder was analysed and because of that we have to consider that other parts of the powder could have given – for reasons we do not necessarily understand right now – other results.

        Was the powder collected, shaken – then a sample was taken for analysis or did Rossi scrape out a bit of powder from a part of the reactor that would have showed a completely different results than powder from other part of the device.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Thank you for clearing that up. My apologies for mistaking your objectives.

    • Obvious

      Most of the answers to these questions are in the report. I suggest reviewing pages 7 and 28, before questioning the professors. That way your questions can be more specific.

      • Thank you,

        Reviewing these pages states: Its says the powder was inserted with one member of the team present – but it also states:

        “Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us”

        I guess I should edit my post to make it more specific

        • Obvious

          I note that there does not seem to be a reported measurement of the mass of the “ash”, which might suggest whether more or less material came out of the reactor than went in as fuel.

        • Obvious

          Regarding your last question (above), whether there is anything to indicate the analyses would be different if all the material were tested:

          “The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash, observing utmost care to avoid any contamination.”

          then

          “An arbitrary sample of different granules is chosen for the analysis, but the same samples are used for both EDS and SIMS. The fuel contains natural nickel powder with a grain size of a few microns. The existence of natural Nickel content is confirmed by all four analyzing methods being used.”
          Therefore the random sampling of fuel particles seems to be effective for the fuel, so a similar random sampling should be at least indicative of the ash content. It would seem unlikely that the professors picked only super-enriched samples of ash by a fluke. However, that does not mean that it wasn’t a fluke. Pouring the sample into a test tube, then pouring some out for selection should homogenize the material reasonably well. It is feasible that larger particles were formed by Ni62 agglomeration, but the normal Ni was such fine powder that it was not, or could not easily be selected… but if separation of nickel isotopes were that simple, they would be much cheaper.

  • I wish the testers also touch down on the processes where Andrea Rossi unloaded the device with the fuel.

    Accusations have been made regarding his involvement and the powder.

    Was Rossi left alone while this process took room?

    Did the cameras in the lab cover this process?

    Was there any scientist (how many) present while this was taking room?

    Did the testers trust Rossi with this process or were they hawking down on him in order to make sure he was not fiddling with the samples?

    Is there any reason to believe / not believe- that the analysis of the powder would come out totally different if all of the powder had been analysed rather than just a small sample of it.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I have already tried to point out why the assumption that Rossi could have manipulated the fuel is absurd. In Rossi’s patent applications it is claimed that the reaction produces copper. But no copper has been found in the ash. Rossi would certainly have added some copper if he had manipulated the fuel. The absence of copper is a huge problem for him with regard to his negotiations with the patent office.

      • Thomas Clarke

        He would have to have added the right isotopic mix of copper. You will remember the problems previously were that the natural copper added was not credible. Adding Ni-62, if believed, is 100% evidence of LENR.

      • Mike

        Yep, that is exactly what I was thinking. But I was also thinking that Rossi may know what is different in the reactor that they didn’t get any copper..

    • Ophelia Rump

      Please specify what magic powder Rossi may have substituted to falsify the existence of the first impossible magic powder?

      He supplied the powder in the first place, why would he do that?
      Couldn’t he just have supplied the “swapped” powder in the first place?

      And also I do not understand the nature of the trick. He supposedly swapped an unknown something for an unknown purpose? The whole argument seems like a magic trick to me, smoke and mirrors.

      Rossi has kooties he touched the reactor, the reactor has kooties.

      If there is some explicit charge of fraud, please spell it out. Otherwise it should be ignored as a personal attack which has no place at the table.
      The letter should not be a fishing expedition for detractors.

      If you wish to pose questions at the grown up table, they should be carefully vetted to be rational questions.

      • clovis ray

        Hi Miss O
        to your last statement, i say, no he has IP, and no one else does,;>)

      • Ophelia,

        I never claimed Cold Fusion(powder) does not produces excess energy.

        As stated – I claim to have known this to be a fact for several years

        Personally, I think the composition of the pow(d)er is a different topic from that of excess heat measurements.

        It was discussed in many forums the thesis that N62 would be the optimal Nickel Isotope for LENR, however, as to my understanding, it was discussed from the angle that the powder would initially consist of N62, not that during the operations other Nickel Isotopes would transmute to N62.

        Also – as to my understanding of the paper, only parts of the powder was analysed and because of that we have to consider that other parts of the powder could have given – for reasons we do not necessarily understand right now – other results.

        Was the powder collected and shaken – then a sample was taken for analysis, or did Rossi scrape out a bit of powder from a part of the reactor that would have showed completely different results than powder from other parts of the device?

        • Ophelia Rump

          Thank you for clearing that up. My apologies for mistaking your objectives.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Ophelia,

        Should Rossi have wished to provide evidence his stuff is the real deal he might well wish to show nuclear transmutation. The fuel sample was what you’d expect: Ni/Al/H/Li all natural. The “ash” sample was 95% pure Ni and that was isotopically pure Ni-62.

        If real that validates his stuff more securely than any calorimetry.

        The ash could of course just be bought 62-Ni substituted for the real fuel either on insertion, or on removal. You can see, for Rossi, the attraction in having indisputable isotopic change third party tested.

        If not it is remarkable that all the other elements, including the Li, seem to have disappeared from the sample. The Li ash analysis is on such a small quantity of Li that it is not surprising the two methods of analysis give widly different answers. So Rossi would have a reaction that magically removed all elements except for Ni from the powder, or else the sampling is highly non-random. Highly non-random sampling is not impossible of course.

    • Obvious

      Most of the answers to these questions are in the report. I suggest reviewing pages 7 and 28, before questioning the professors. That way your questions can be more specific.

      • Thank you,

        Reviewing these pages states: Its says the powder was inserted with one member of the team present – but it also states:

        “Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us”

        I guess I should edit my post to make it more specific

        • Obvious

          I note that there does not seem to be a reported measurement of the mass of the “ash”, which might suggest whether more or less material came out of the reactor than went in as fuel.

        • Obvious

          Regarding your last question (above), whether there is anything to indicate the analyses would be different if all the material were tested:

          “The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash, observing utmost care to avoid any contamination.”

          then

          “An arbitrary sample of different granules is chosen for the analysis, but the same samples are used for both EDS and SIMS. The fuel contains natural nickel powder with a grain size of a few microns. The existence of natural Nickel content is confirmed by all four analyzing methods being used.”
          Therefore the random sampling of fuel particles seems to be effective for the fuel, so a similar random sampling should be at least indicative of the ash content. It would seem unlikely that the professors picked only super-enriched samples of ash by a fluke. However, that does not mean that it wasn’t a fluke. Pouring the sample into a test tube, then pouring some out for selection should homogenize the material reasonably well. It is feasible that larger particles were formed by Ni62 agglomeration, but the normal Ni was such fine powder that it was not, or could not easily be selected… but if separation of nickel isotopes were that simple, they would be much cheaper.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I downloaded the report again from the elforsk site and noticed that the file has changed (different number of bytes than the old file which I had saved). However I don’t find any differences by comparing text line endings on each page. Maybe there are no factual changes but someone just generated the pdf afresh for some reason.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I have recently compared the Sifferkoll version with the first version released by Elforsk. They had only added the date and corrected two typos. The size of the current file from Elforsk is identical with the size of my original file, thus I think that there have been no further modifications.

    • Obvious

      The version presently available (10/10/2014) was edited from the original, dated 05/10/2014.
      Minor spelling errors have been fixed, but I saw no significant changes otherwise.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I downloaded the report again from the elforsk site and noticed that the file has changed (different number of bytes than the old file which I had saved). However I don’t find any differences by comparing text line endings on each page. Maybe there are no factual changes but someone just generated the pdf afresh for some reason.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I have recently compared the Sifferkoll version with the first version released by Elforsk. They had only added the date and corrected two typos. The size of the current file from Elforsk is identical with the size of my original file, thus I think that there have been no further modifications.

    • Obvious

      The version presently available (10/10/2014) was edited from the original, dated 05/10/2014.
      Minor spelling errors have been fixed, but I saw no significant changes otherwise.

      EDIT: the date I mean above is the PDF creation date.

  • David Lunt

    I would like to believe that the E-Cat really produces a lot of excess heat energy, but I ran across what seems to be a serious objection to the radiated power thermography calculation.

    The authors of the new paper used the basic Boltzmann formula for radiated power in watts per square meter, which is a function of the emissivity of the radiator and the temperature. The measured temperature value used for the Boltzmann formula was apparently indirectly calculated by the camera electronics using operator input values, in particular the emissivity of the radiator.

    The authors used the temperature calculated by the IR camera after having entered the emissivity of alumina into the camera, assuming that the entire heat radiating body of the E-Cat was alumina. Then the total power output was computed for the paper, mainly using the area of the alumina tube and tube ends.

    The problem claimed with this is that alumina is apparently partially transparent to the thermal radiation of the inconel resistors. If this is true, what was really picked up by the IR camera was IR radiation partially coming directly from the Inconel resistors. The Inconel resistors have a much higher emissivity and smaller area than the surrounding alumina tube. This error would make the IR camera temperature measurement and corresponding total E-Cat power output calculated from it given in the paper much higher than its actual value, with no actual net excess heat output.

    I couldn’t find any data on the thermal radiation transparency of the alumina used for the tube, but I did discover that another form of special sintered powdered alumina has been proposed for use in the IR domes of Sidewinder missiles. For this use it of course would have to be quite transparent to IR.

    I’m not an expert in the science, and would be open to an answer to this objection. Is this objection invalid, and if so why?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I’m as well not an expert, but this question has already been addressed. In the spectral range that the cameras can detect, the alumina is opaque. Therefore, the measured output should even be somewhat lower than the total amount of emitted energy. Brian Ahern has spoken with a top-notch expert in thermography who confirmed that the setup was appropriate. Therefore, I think that there is no reason to be overly concerned with regard to this.

      • LCD

        This is correct. The alumina is roughly 80% transmissive between 200nm & 7microns, everywhere else that matters its opaque, whereas the ir camera only sees between 7.4 microns and 13microns. So you see that shouldn’t be a problem. As far as the side winder raydome you mention IR but don’t specify swir, nir or fir, so it could be true that the raydome can see ir and that the test is correct since nir, swir, and other ir light is in the 1 to 7micron band.

  • David Lunt

    I would like to believe that the E-Cat really produces a lot of excess heat energy, but I ran across what seems to be a serious objection to the radiated power thermography calculation.

    The authors of the new paper used the basic Boltzmann formula for radiated power in watts per square meter, which is a function of the emissivity of the radiator and the temperature. The measured temperature value used for the Boltzmann formula was apparently indirectly calculated by the camera electronics using operator input values, in particular the emissivity of the radiator.

    The authors used the temperature calculated by the IR camera after having entered the emissivity of alumina into the camera, assuming that the entire heat radiating body of the E-Cat was alumina. Then the total power output was computed for the paper, mainly using the area of the alumina tube and tube ends.

    The problem claimed with this is that alumina is apparently partially transparent to the thermal radiation of the inconel resistors. If this is true, what was really picked up by the IR camera was IR radiation partially coming directly from the Inconel resistors. The Inconel resistors have a much higher emissivity and smaller area than the surrounding alumina tube. This error would make the IR camera temperature measurement and corresponding total E-Cat power output calculated from it given in the paper much higher than its actual value, with no actual net excess heat output.

    I couldn’t find any data on the thermal radiation transparency of the alumina used for the tube, but I did discover that another form of special sintered powdered alumina has been proposed for use in the IR domes of Sidewinder missiles. For this use it of course would have to be quite transparent to IR.

    I’m not an expert in the science, and would be open to an answer to this objection. Is this objection invalid, and if so why?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I’m as well not an expert, but this question has already been addressed. In the spectral range that the cameras can detect, the alumina is opaque. Therefore, the measured output should even be somewhat lower than the total amount of emitted energy. Brian Ahern has spoken with a top-notch expert in thermography who confirmed that the setup was appropriate. Therefore, I think that there is no reason to be overly concerned with regard to this.

      • LCD

        This is correct. The alumina is roughly 80% transmissive between 200nm & 7microns, everywhere else that matters its opaque, whereas the ir camera only sees between 7.4 microns and 13microns. So you see that shouldn’t be a problem. As far as the side winder raydome you mention IR but don’t specify swir, nir or fir, so it could be true that the raydome can see ir and that the test is correct since nir, swir, and other ir light is in the 1 to 7micron band.

      • Thomas Clarke

        You need an assumption about alumina thickness in order to see where it is transmissive and where opaque. Also an assumption about its microcrystalline structure.

        I’d like to hear what they are.

        • LCD

          We can make some qualitative assumptions from the pictures of the turned off ecat sitting on the scale. It’s not transparent to the naked eye which is in the visible where it is most transparent. From that alone we can deduce its likely very opaque at above 7 um.

          But I agree that info would have been nice.

          🙂

          • Thomas Clarke

            That could be an opaque tape underneath a translucent Al2O3 outer skin?

          • LCD

            Don’t you think it would melt

    • Thomas Clarke

      I’m inclined to agree, except I’d want to check:

      Was the expert taking into account the varying characteristics of alumina with micro-crystalline structure? Larger crystals make it transparent at longer wavelengths

      Was the expert aware of the different filters used for the two cameras used? We presumably have only the high temperature camera (with a lower wavelength filter) used in the active test.

      Does the used emissivity of 0.4 hold across all alumina surface treatments? A 2.5X increase in inferred IR is not exactly a conservative assumption and requires careful scrutiny.

      How can we tell what is the thickness of the alumina before some (insulating, emissivity 1) inner tape is reached? Everything is transparent if thin enough, and an expert opinion would need to take the alumina thickness into account. As far as I can see the alumina could easily be only 500microns thick.

      My guess is that we don’t get an error of more than 30% from this effect, but I cannot prove that and authority from experts is fine, but only if they are asked the right questions, given all the details. it is easy, quite innocently, to get the wrong expert opinion.

    • David Lunt

      Thanks for the well thought out responses. There is also still the apparently simple problem that despite the IR camera temperature measurement/calculation of an overall alumina radiator tempurature close to that of the Inconel resistor (supposedly about 1400 C), in the photographs the alumina outer tube has a dim red-orange color temperature significantly cooler than the bright yellow glowing Inconel resistor wire coming out of it. There is probably a simple explanation, but I would like to know what it is.

      The multiple technical issues this exchange brings up only goes to show how important it is for there to be other tests hopefully using different simpler less problematic power output measurement methods and carried out by different teams of investigators.

      • LCD

        What picture are you looking at?

        • David Lunt

          Figure 12a, page 25 of the paper. The following on the same page discusses this picture and also 12b, but it doesn’t seem to me that it really covers the issue. If the alumina tube is measured/calculated to be at about the 1400 C of the resistor wire, then it seems it should also glow bright yellow. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting the apparent color temperatures in the photo, but I’d like to understand how.

          From the paper: “The resistors appear to glow intensely in the parts lying outside the caps, whereas inside the reactor body they seem to shade an underlying emission of light. This may be explained if we consider that the main source of energy inside the reactor body is actually the charge, and that it is emitting more light than the resistors. These are not visible through the caps, which are thicker than the reactor body. Upon leaving the reactor, however, the resistors emit heat almost exclusively by radiation (convection is negligible here, as they are inside the rods): there are no brighter sources of light which can “outshine” them, nor masses of alumina that can cool them. Their temperature is moreover fairly high, on account of the current they carry and the heat extracted by conduction from the reactor.”

  • Freethinker

    Thomas,

    I agree in so far that the full data from the active run, as the reactor heats up will give some more information, but I still maintain my position on what is currently available. You cannot deduce anything from comparing the non active with the active by evaluating the Joule heat data.

    Also,I think you are to limited in your reasoning about the impedance of the the coils in the active reactor environment. By arguing from an NTC perspective and temperature alone you – as much as you may be correct in the assertions you make – you can not be certain that e.g. magnetic field situation does not contribute in some way that will cause the current to be lower. You do not have all the information about the innards of the reactor – and the innards of the reactor does have a direct relation to the IP.

    I do find your last statement puzzling. Could you perhaps elaborate on “LENR process interact with current is not relevant – the current runs inside the heating wires”.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    If you calculate the power on the basis of voltage and current, the relationship is linear. Only if you take the resistance as a basis value you have to use I^2.

  • Freethinker

    True, albeit this is a but more tangible.

  • LCD

    We can make some qualitative assumptions from the pictures of the turned off ecat sitting on the scale. It’s not transparent to the naked eye which is in the visible where it is most transparent. From that alone we can deduce its likely very opaque at above 7 um.

    But I agree that info would have been nice.

    🙂

    • Thomas Clarke

      That could be an opaque tape underneath a translucent Al2O3 outer skin?

      • LCD

        Don’t you think it would melt

  • LCD

    What picture are you looking at?

  • Freethinker

    😀

    you still argue that something will nullify the claims of the report while at the same time conceding you do not have enough information to do so. “Perhaps” other measuring errors will, apart from the irrelevant inverted clamp problem.

    What good is then your reasoning? You can prove nothing. You can only cast shadows.

    There is no certainty Rossi’s COP is real?

    When it comes to the test team and IH’s claims of the COP, they have a much stronger position than you have with your line of reasoning. They point at relevant information that is presented, you point at things for which you have no relevant information, only conjecture.

    Could it be “redone more carefully”? There is no paper, no report that has ever been presented that has not made someone complain about it. It is inevitable. It is also part of the process. Also, you should perceive of this report as a preprint, as they have submitted this to Journal of Physics D. Maybe you should consider these things before expressing words as “innocent or deliberate” as though the team were gullible or corrupt individuals when in fact they are credible scientists and engineers. It exposes your thinking much more than you perhaps intended.

    But by all means, press for more data, preferably ALL raw data. I would like to have it too. But right now, they are right and you are wrong.

  • Freethinker

    Except that there is no hole to plug, as you cannot build a viable argument that is coherent and consistent. You point out what *could* be problems that *could* cause the COP to be 1, but any such model can be build any way because for all you know e.g. there is an array of IR laser heating the back side to the reactor, and all data you look at is meaningless anyway. But that is of course not the case.

    Your cool and leveled reasoning aside, you are building your case on things that outside the scope of the test , and in the same cool manor of reasoning you are belittling the test team.

    There are two main observables that you should be concerned with, and that is the in-power and the temperature of the reactor. The authors then have a more elaborate model to describe all energy so it becomes thus more complex, but the core situation is – two observables. Not how the Joule heating can be so and so, or if the Inconel has this or that property. Things for which you have no information, or no relevant or coherent information.

    “The test COP could be invalid. That seems very likely, based on internal inconsistency, but I cannot prove it”
    “I have proof that the tests prove nothing. That nullifies them as far as their purpose..” and of course “I have no evidence of their wrongdoing.”

    So you have no proof the COP is invalid, or any wrong doing, but you do have proof that the test prove nothing. And on top of that you have the nerve to point out the obvious “Science requires tests to be proven valid.”. Why don’t you start by understanding the scope of the test?

    You, yourself, may be convinced, but you do not have proof for “that the tests prove nothing”. Why? Because you extend your judgment beyond the black box, and base your conclusion on the lack of information. And as you cannot judge, you claim the test false. But it is rather you who are in error as the test you evaluate is not the right one.

    So I wonder. Why is it necessary for you to belittle the team, insinuating they are not independent, and in the extension that they are dishonest, to claim that you can prove that the report cannot carry the claims therein? Is it perhaps so that you “know” this cannot work? You know. The same thing you accuse me of being guilty of? I wonder. What is your take on LENR as a whole?

    The core of your argument is the claimed inverted clamp, and the non relevant comparison between joule heating in the dummy and the active reactor. There is nothing for you there. You lack the logical support to say that the authors conclusions are false or that they have been unsuccessful in leading in evidence the reasonable conclusions they presented in their report.