Requirements of H-Ni LENR Devices and Their Implications on the Lugano Test

The following guest post was submitted by Michael Lammert. 

Requirements of H-Ni LENR Devices and Their Implications on the Lugano Test

by Michael Lammert (AKA Dr. Mike)

October 31, 2014

I’ve continued to think about the results of the Lugano test and Rossi’s E-Cat devices. Two questions that I’ve been considering are: What factors are required to produce an optimum H-Ni LENR device (ala Rossi’s E-Cat) and are the active “consumption” powers in the Lugano test reasonable and correct?

As I see it, key requirements for a useful E-Cat type device include:

  1. Ability to generate enough heat within the Ni powder to produce a useful output.
  2. Ability to control the low energy nuclear reactions sufficiently to provide stable operation without thermal runaway.
  3. Ability to deliver the heat to a load upon demand.
  4. Ability to dissipate the heat from the Ni to its surroundings fast enough to prevent the Ni from melting.

Although we don’t know yet what exact combination of Ni powder, hydrogen, catalysts, and electromagnetic pulses are needed to produce a working LENR device, there doesn’t appear to be any question that an E-cat device can produce sufficient heat to be useful. Not only is Rossi currently working hard to get his 1 MW plant installed, others have independently demonstrated useful heat from LENR devices.

The control of an LENR device for stable operation is going to be a difficult, but not impossible task, at least until the theory of operation is well understood. The ability to deliver heat to a load upon demand should just be a straight forward engineering problem, except for the control function. Therefore, both items #2 and #3 will benefit greatly when a solid theory of LENR is established.

I believe that getting the heat generated in the Ni dissipated to its surroundings will be the primary limiting factor for how much power can be generated from a given size device. Ni has a specific heat of 0.44J/gr/oK, which means that 0.44 Joules of energy will raise the temperature of 1 gram of thermally isolated Ni by 1 oK. It would only take about 520 Joules (1 Joule = 1W-sec) to raise that 1 gram of thermally isolated Ni from room temperature to its melting point (0.44*(1455-273) = 520). Luckily the Ni powder in the E-Cats is not thermally isolated. In the Hot-Cat, the Ni is in contact with both other Ni particles and the alumina reactor. Both Ni and alumina have reasonable thermal conductivities (91 and 30 W/m/oK, respectively). The Ni will also radiate heat proportionally to T4, and also have heat transferred via convection to the mostly hydrogen gas within the reactor. (Although there is no data on what the partial pressure of hydrogen is during operation, cooling through transfer of energy to the hydrogen might be made somewhat more effective by removing most of the air within the reactor prior to start-up since hydrogen has about a 7 times higher heat conductivity than air.)

How fast can heat be dissipated from the Ni powder through conduction, radiation and convection? For the answer to this question I would request a thermal engineer to make a calculation based on assumptions that are appropriate to the operating conditions of the Hot-Cat. The closest electrical analogy that I found to this thermal dissipation problem is data on the internet for temperature vs. current data for NiCr 60 wire (60%Ni). A 1 gram piece of 18 gauge (1 mm diameter) NiCr 60 wire would be about 15.5cm long and have a high temperature resistance of about 0.24 ohms. The NiCr would melt at a current of about 33 amps or at a power of about 260W (332*.024). (This is for a straight wire in air.)   I would expect a gram of Ni powder sitting on alumina in a hydrogen environment to have a somewhat higher maximum dissipation power than the 260W for a piece of NiCr wire. However, if the Ni was clumped in a pile, it might be expected to melt at even a lower power level than the 260W. The solution to the dissipation problem is to add more Ni powder, distribute the powder in a uniform layer over the entire reactor internal surface, and run the reactor at a lower power generation rate per gram of Ni powder.

Now let’s look at the numbers from the Lugano test. It was claimed that 0.55 grams of Ni was used in the reactor with average output powers of about 1660W for the first part of the run and about 2320W for the second part. Assuming all of this excess power is generated uniformly in the 0.55 grams of Ni powder, dissipation in the Ni would have to be 3018W/gr in the first run and 4018W/gr in the second portion. Although I will wait to see a calculation of the maximum possible dissipation per gram of Ni powder from a thermal engineer before making a final conclusion, I believe these dissipation numbers are about an order of magnitude too high for the 0.55 gram of Ni powder not to melt.

If it is assumed that it is not probable that the measured excess power seen in the Lugano test could have come from heat generation in the small amount of Ni, where did the heat generation come from? In my previous post I pointed out the problem with the “Joule heating” calculations, reprinted here:

  1. Problem with the “Joule Heating” Calculation

         The “Joule heating” calculation for the Cu wire for the dummy run on pages 13-14 seems to be fairly straight forward. The “Joule heating” is simply the resistance of the wire times the current squared flowing through that wire. Sum the Joule heating in the 3 Cu wires from the controller and the 6 Cu wires to the device and you have the power that comes out of controller, but doesn’t participate in heating the Inconel coils. This is such a simple calculation, that it seems unlikely that an error would be made in other calculations of Joule heating. However, the “Joule heating” in the Cu wires for the active run has been calculated in Table 7, page 22 as about 37W for the input power at 800W and about 42W for the operation at 920W. These “Joule heating” calculations imply that the current in the Cu wires was 2.35 times as high in the 800W active run as it was in the dummy run (SQRT(37/6.7) = 2.35). The only way for this to be possible is for the Inconel resistors to have a very large negative temperature coefficient of resistance. Although the report did not specify what type of Inconel was used in the coils, the data sheets for various Inconels show well less than 10% variation in resistivity over a wide temperature range. For example, Inconel 625 has a resistivity of 135.9 micro-ohm-cm at 427 oC and 133.9 micro-ohm-cm at 1093 oC. Other Inconels have a slightly increasing resistivity as the temperature increases. Also it should be pointed out that if the Inconel used in the coils in this experiment had a large negative TCR, then the Joule heating as calculated in Table 7 would have been much higher than 42W for the 900W portion of the test. The calculated “Joule heating” powers are directly proportional to the “consumption” powers, indicating no change in resistivity of the Inconel coils as the temperature increases from about 1260 oC to 1400 oC in the two portions of the active runs. Questions for the authors: 1. What is the source of the error in the “Joule heating” calculation for the active run?   2. What type of Inconel was used in the resistor coils? 3. What was the current flowing through the resistors for each of the active power levels?

 

In re-reading the Lugano report I found that the authors actually answered my third question on the current levels on the active power: On page 3 they say that the potentiometer on the TRIAC power regulator was used to set the operating point, “normally 40-50 Amps”. Using the data in Table 7, page 22 for the Joule heating numbers, the average current for File #2 can be calculated as I2 = 19.5* SQRT(36.98/6.7) = 45.81A (where 19.5 is the current in the dummy run and 6.7 is the Joule heating in the dummy run), and the average current for File #7 can be calculated as I7 = 19.5* SQRT(42.18/6.7) = 48.93A. Indeed both of these currents are within the 40-50A range quoted by the authors on page 3. Since the resistance of the Inconel coils is known to change by less than +/- 5% over the operating temperature range (look this up if you don’t believe it) the input power for the active runs will equal to the dummy power times the ratio of the Joule heating powers. For File #2 the actual power supplied by the TRIAC regulator (“consumption” power in Table 7) is P2= 486*36.98/6.7 = 2682W (+/-5%) (486 is the power for the dummy run), and for File #7 the actual power supplied by the TRIAC regulator is P7 = 486*42.18/6.7 =3060W (+/-5%). (The “Joule heating” powers must be subtracted from these values to get the actual power delivered to the Inconel wire resistors.) Using these calculated “consumption” powers results in File #2 having a net power production of -217W with a COP of .918 and File #7 having a net power production of 180W with a COP of 1.06. If these numbers are correct, one can see that the power output due to the LENR effect is in the noise of the measurement technique. However, the analysis of the “fuel” and the “ash” clearly show that nuclear reactions took place within the reactor during the active runs, but perhaps at a power level in the low 100’s of Watts.

My speculation as to a possible source of an error in the set-up is that the connection of the power source supplying the “specific electromagnetic pulses” mentioned on page 1 of the report is somehow interfering with getting an accurate power measurement from the PCE 830 meter on the output of the TRIAC power regulator. There is no electrical diagram showing how this power source is wired to the reactor and the TRIAC power regulator, and the authors did not state whether this power supply was turned on during the dummy run. I would further speculate that the authors measured the higher current and relatively low power during the active runs and assumed that Inconel resistor coils just had a large negative temperature coefficient of resistance. (This is what I assumed until I looked up the TCR for the various types of Inconel.)

It would certainly be disappointing if the results of the Lugano test are clouded by an “instrumentation” error; however, it wouldn’t be the first time and won’t be the last time that the measurement technique caused an error in reported scientific results. In 2011 the scientists working on the OPERA project at Italy’s INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory reported that they had measured neutrinos that were traveling slightly faster than the speed of light. It took about 6 months with help from scientists outside their laboratory to finally confirm that they had an error in their measurement technique.

Recommendations

   My recommendations to the Lugano authors and others working on E-Cat experiments are as follows:

  1. Have a thermal engineer estimate the maximum power dissipation rate for 1 gram of Ni in the Hot-Cat reactor based on assumptions that match the operating conditions for the Lugano test.
  2. Have the electrical set-up of the Lugano test reviewed by an electrical engineer to determine if the power source supplying the “specific electromagnetic pulses” could have interfered with making an accurate power measurement during the active runs.
  3. Re-examine the radial uniformity of the reactor temperature data. If the Ni powder was mostly at the bottom of the reactor, I would expect to see at least a 100 oC temperature difference between the bottom of the reactor and the top of the reactor (needs verified by a thermal engineer’s calculation). If the radial temperature uniformity is about the same in the active runs as the dummy run, then there is a good chance that most of the observed output power is coming from input power to the Inconel coils, not from LENR in the Ni powder.
  4. For future Hot-Cat experiments it might be beneficial to supply the “specific electromagnetic pulses” via a fourth coil wound on the reactor.
  5. The MFMP group would have a much higher chance of success if they tried to duplicate the original E-Cat, rather than the Hot-Cat. If they decide to go ahead and build a copy of the Hot-Cat, they should probably follow my recommendation #4 above and load the reactor with a minimum of 5-10 grams of “fuel”.

Michael Lammert.

  • Ged

    More misunderstandings of how joule heating and input power work. The input power is virtually independent of joule heating and vice versa (I.e. this is why high tension lines don’t burst into flames).

    -Joule heating is directly, geometrically, dependent on amperage.-

    Input power is dependent linearly on amperage And voltage. You can up the input power by upping the voltage without significantly affecting joule heating. Again, this is exactly why we use high voltage lines to carry MW of electricity, not high amperage.

    The input power is measured and reported directly. Stop fallaciously trying to conflate joule heating and input power and try to rewrite their actual measurements from the mains. Remember, they measured the power going to the controller, as well as from it. You cannot invent power with a controller, or we’ve just discovered a whole new power source and law of physics.

    The joule heating was -subtracted out- of a the input power, as it is line loss seen by each wire and is not a splitting of input power as each wire sees the same load, so if there is any error here regarding joule heating the affect on the COP calculations is minor.

    • Ged

      Also, joule heating is -not a measured quantity-. It is a calculated one based on assumptions. It is not fit nor useful for back calculations, especially when we -do- have the measured quantities we care about.

      • ivanc

        Where did your studied electricity?
        This is based in V=RI, and Power=VI, so Power=R I I (or I^2)
        as the feeding cables are copper R is constant, and mesurable. if you take to readings at different set voltages.
        now you could calculate I, and I is in series with the device, so is the input current,.
        that will cause the input power.

        I will add a question, What power is spent creating the electromagnetic signal?
        Or is just an harmonic result of the use of TRIACS.

        A serious report will have show an oscilloscope with the wave form.

        • Ged

          I don’t think so.

          We aren’t talking about the heating of the reactor by the resistors, that’s not the “Joule heating” the authors are reporting on or putting in their table. We’re talking about loss of power by transmission down the lines which they are subtracting out from the heating consumption power of the reactor. Or on page 13: “For this reason, it is expedient to evaluate what portion of the current, fed to the system by the power mains, is dissipated by the cables as Joule heat.”

          If you believe what you say, then the “Joule heating” they report is the input power, which means they were only inputting 7 W to the dummy reactor (page 14), or 41 W to the actually E-cat experimental run (Table 7)? Or is their input power the 900 W they supply?

          Everyone seems to be conflating the heating of the reactor (the 900 W) with the calculated -power loss- that never makes it to the reactor for the purposes of heating (the 41 W).

        • Dr. Mike

          ivanc,
          I believe the “specific electromagnetic pulses” are supplied by a pulse generator- probably the brown box seen in Figure 3, page 4 of the Lugano report. As far as I can tell both the power needed to create the electromagnetic pulses and the power they deliver to the reactor are not included in the COP calculations. I assume that no oscilloscope waveform was shown because it is proprietary. Mentioning the “specific electromagnetic pulses” in the introduction on page 1 and then not discussing them anywhere else in the report certainly did not enhance the report. I would have been satisfied with the report stating that the nature of these pulses was proprietary, and therefore no oscilloscope waveforms could be shown. If the report had just shown how the pulse generator was hooked up in the Figure 4 wiring diagram, someone might have been able to determine if the pulse generator was affecting the PCE-830 power measurements.
          Dr. Mike

      • Dr. Mike

        Ged,
        One key point of my post is that I believe the the PCE-830 is giving an erroneous reading of the power because of the way the pulse generator was hooked up to the TRIAC regulator and heater coils. I can’t even imagine how the pulse generator was hooked up. Even though the Joule heating is a calculated quantity, it ir comes from a single calculation of the resistance of the Cu wire and a measured quantity the current. If you read the Lugano report carefully you will see that the current was measured by both the PCE-830 and clamp-on ammeters. It can be assumed that this is an accurate measurement, because a problem would have been noted if the two measurements did not agree. Finally note that even though the Cu wire resistance was a calculated value, by using a ratio of powers to currents squared, the value of the calculated resistance of the Cu wire, which is assumed to remain constant, the calculated resistance cancels out of the ratios. (P1/P2 =I1*I1*R/I2/I2/R =I1*I1/I2/I2) These same equations were used to calculate input powers to the Inconel coils without actually calculating he Inconel resistance.
        Dr. Mike

        • forget it,
          you cannot fool those powermeter with triacs. this kind of devices is designed to measures tricky losses at high frequency because of switching artifact on IBGT, Mosfet…
          the bandwidth in not infinit, but a rule of electricity is that if the voltage have no noticable harmonics, then the current whatever it is transfort few power…

          as said before the only way to smuggle energy, is a fraud with huge DC or HF energy injected as voltage, with current harmonics or DC matching the voltage.

          the power is the sum of power hy harmonics. if no voltage above some HF or at DC, no power forget it… even a magician cannot change that.

          note that in that case the front PCE830 is the one to follow.

          the second hone works without problem, but there is huge voltage and current harmonics and the computation is above the level of a skeptic.

          note that even on the intermediate PCE830, measuring DC voltage OR current (yes OR… if one is null, no power can pass) and HF voltage OR current…

          note that for high frequency, a way to measure HF current, above PCE830 (100harminics, 5kHz) is to measure RF in the room…
          few amp at 5kHz+ cannot be ignored by simply an osciloscope with a tiny wire as antenna.

          It tested it as kid.

          the bottom line is that only a conspiracy of fraud, is a credible explanation, beside the evidente hypothesis that it works.

    • Dr. Mike

      Ged,
      What you say about power lines and why they use high voltage is correct; however I disagree with your statement : “You cannot calculate input power from joule heating unless you exactly know the voltage at all times.” If you know the resistances of both the Cu wire and the Inconel wire, and you know the current through both wires, you can calculate the joule heating in both the Cu wire and the Inconel wire. The circuit schematic for one phase of the heater would just be a resistor for the input Cu wire, a resistor for the Inconel wire, and a resistor for the the output Cu wire connected in series across the output of TRIAC regulator power supply. It might have been clearer if I had just calculated the resistance for each of the 3 heating coils and used this number in my input power calculations. Using the same assumption as the authors,that is, the current is about the same in all three heater coils and their resistance is about the same, the resistance of one Inconel heater wire can be calculated from R=P/I/I. or R=(486-6.7)/3/9.85/9.85 = 1.647 ohms. One of my main point is that this resistance changes by less than +/-5% over the entire temperature range of operation. From the Joule heating in the Cu wire for the active runs, one can calculate the current that was flowing (through both the Cu wire and the Inconel wire). For File #2, the current can be calculated from as I2 =9.85*SQRT(36.98/6.7) = 23.14A, and for File #7 the current can be calculated as I7 = 9.85*SQRT(42.18/6.7) = 24.71A. Now the power to a single heater wire can be calculated as P=I*I*R, so P2 = 23.14*23.14*1.647= 881.9W and P7 = 24.71*24.71*1.647 = 1005.6W. The total power to all 3 heater coils is just these numbers multiplied by 3 or 2646W for File #2 and 3017W for File #7. These numbers are can be compared to the powers I calculated in my post for the power delivered to the coils: for File #2: 2682-37 = 2645W and for File #7: 3060-42 = 3018W.
      Please note that we do know the voltage across the coils: V=I*R or for File #2 the RMS voltage is V2 = 23.14*1.647 = 38.11V and for File #7 the RMS voltage is V7 = 24.71*1.647 = 40.70V. Also note that I misquoted the current coming out of the TRIAC supply as 19.5A in my post- it should have been 19.7A. However, since i didn’t use this current in my calculations I believe the power and COP numbers are correct.

      I hope this is a better explanation for you on how input powers to the Inconel coils can be calculated from the data provided by the authors.
      Dr. Mike

      • Ged

        The problem with your calculations and even theirs is you are assuming to know the resistance. You calculate it, but they do too and their numbers are wildly different from yours, by three fold. Such as on page 14: “one may easily deduce that the electrical resistance of the three cables exiting the regulator (Circuit 1, C1) is = R1 = 4.375*10-3 Ω, whereas that of the cables splitting off from these (Circuit 2, C2) = R2 = 2.811*10-3 Ω”. And then “For each of the six 50 cm lengths of copper cable, the relevant resistance is 7.028*10-4 Ω”.

        Their joule heating values are a summation across all the circuits.

        But if we use the resistance they used in their calculations from which you’re back calculating, then the voltage is actually in the millivolts by the calculations and assumptions you make here.

        The authors don’t actually supply data on the amperage during operation. What they say on page 13 is: “In the present run of the E-Cat the current flow may actually be higher than 40 A. For this reason, it is expedient to evaluate what portion of the current, fed to the system by the power mains”. They only say “normally 40-50 A” on page 3, but normally doesn’t mean that’s what we’re seeing, and they admit as such in page 13.

        The authors never actually supply the amps or volts measured as far as I have been able to find in the report linked here by E-cat World. Without that knowledge, you can’t back calculate correctly, it’s impossible. And the divergence of their values from yours shows that in spades.

        Instead of believing the author’s table 7 showing consumption in watts, you’re focusing on joule heating while having no reliable information to exactly calculate it. And you come to a completely different resistance value for their wires than they have, while their resistance values are what were used to give the joule heating they report — meaning your results are immediately divergent from them.

        The fact one can drop input power but still raise joule heating by raising the amps while lowering the volts more, shows that in the absence of amperage or voltage data directly supplied, we can’t guess and back calculate input power. They -do- supply the input power consumed though.

        So, I have to side solidly with the authors in the absence of any more available data. I cannot agree with your analysis at all due to divergence from the reported resistance for the wires and the reported input power. Better data and or assumptions than currently presented will have to be supplied to convince me otherwise.

        • AlbertNN

          The analysis by Gullstrom is not compatible with the amount of fuel, 1g, that was used in the latest test.

  • Buck

    Dr. Mike,

    I find it very easy to express that your time spent, writing down and sharing your framing of the problem (perspective, observations, questions, and suggestions), is greatly appreciated. It honors Rossi/IH and all others fighting the tide. And it is a blast to read a coherent depiction.

    Thank you.

    Oh . . . and Happy Halloween . . . it think your posting will only scare the lurking skeptopaths.

    • Dr. Mike

      Buck.
      Thanks for your response. We all should be honoring Rossi for his efforts to make LENR useful for mankind! I’m not so sure this post will scare the lurking skeptopaths since I am pointing out a possible problem with the input power measurements. However, even if I’m correct that there is some error in the input power measurement, science and knowledge will have advanced from the efforts of the Lugano scientists. Many thanks to them for their work on this project!
      Dr. Mike

  • Ophelia Rump

    As Rossi said, the time of testing is over. If tests had any merit we would have seen that merit demonstrated by now.

    People will see what they want to see. There are enough people with open minds and open eyes for the market to bring us magic if institutions will not bring us science.

    • Bernie777

      Ophelia…..I wish I could hit the up arrow ten times. Well said, bring on the customers!!

    • Dr. Mike

      Ophelia,
      I have to disagree with you that there is no benefit in second guessing test reports. Science only progresses when results are published and others learn from what is published. Often someone finds an error (could be a minor error or might be a major error) in a published result and getting this error corrected is what really keeps science moving forward. I certainly won’t claim that I’m sure everything that I said in my post is correct. (Actually I know it isn’t- I misquoted the dummy run current as 19.5A when the report said it was 19.7A) However, what if as a result of this post Rossi finds out that his measurement of active input power is not correct for the Hot-Cat? What if this post results in some calculations that shows how much Ni should be used in the Hot-Cat?
      I believe the testing is far from over. I would hope that the physics departments in every university in the world would look at the results of the Lugano tests and decide they had to start running their own LENR experiments.
      Do you have any comments on the key points of my post?
      Dr. Mike

    • LuFong

      Actually if the results aren’t analyzed and the test repeated, it’s just a demonstration and I would agree with you that there is no merit to this. I think that a thorough analysis of the test and test results will either strengthen the results or diminish them. It’s also true that many of the posters on this blog (including me) aren’t very capable of analyzing the test results but that is no reason to stop those that can.

      All of us want to know as much as possible about the E-Cat and there will be precious little additional news coming from IH in the next year. Let us enjoy this report as long as possible!

  • Obvious

    The actual power supplied by the triac is reported in column 1, table seven. Calculating it obtusely and getting a result that is three times higher means that those latter calculations are grossly wrong.

    • Dr. Mike

      Obvious,
      I would agree with your second sentence if you would add: those latter calculations are grossly wrong OR THE POWER MEASUREMENT IS INCORRECT! The Cu wire Joule heating measurements are based on a calculation of resistance and a measurement of current. The report states that the current measurements were verified with independent clamp-on ammeters so I have to assume that if a difference were ever seen between the clamp-on ammeters and the PCE-830, it would have been investigated immediately. If you make calculations using only the ratios of the Joule heating numbers, that ratio represents the square of the current ratio, a parameter that was measured by two independent meters. So do you believe a parameter that was measured with two independent meters, or a number that was just read off a single meter.
      If the experimental set-up had really been wired as shown in Figure 4, it would have been hard to imagine how the PCE-830 could have had an erroneous power reading. However, the authors say on page 1 that “specific electromagnetic pulses” were added to the coils, and the picture in Figure 3, page 4 shows another brown box hooked up to the reactor (presumably a pulse generator). My hypotheses is that the connection of this pulse generator resulted in an erroneous power readings on the PCE-830 for the active runs.
      Please continue to look over the data and post your future thoughts.
      Dr. Mike

      • Obvious

        Sorry if my post came across with attitude. I have been dragging my brain through all the calculations and inserting various possibilities and tracking the changes through the math.
        I think the specific pulses are after the control box, so they should be included in the mean power consumption. I don’t think the power consumption measurements are wrong. They are the easiest to do and verify.
        The pulses are not likely to be high powered, but the pulse box could use a highly variable amount of power. There is no way to determine the characteristics of the pulse box.
        The calculated values are prone to various assumptions, many of which are neither falsifiable nor verifiable, unless the math jives.

        • Dr. Mike

          Obvious,
          You are entitled to post with attitude! If the repetition rate of the pulses is low (no data on this) the pulses won’t be adding much power to the reactor. It would have been good for the authors to state that the “specific electromagnetic pulses” contributed very little power to the reactor if this really is true.
          The power consumption measurements should have been easy, but the reported values for the active runs do not “jive” with the other data in the report. What is needed is further explanation from the authors on why the Joule heating in the Cu wires does not correlate with the Joule heating in the Inconel wires for the active runs.
          Dr.Mike

          • Obvious

            Thanks for sticking around to defend your theory. We will all learn something from this discussion, eventually.

      • Ged

        Or their power measurement is correct and we are missing something about their table 7 -calculation-. I find it far easier to assume a math error or lack of our knowledge of all their math parameters, than an instrumentation error; especially since our example is the dummy run and we are given only a vague “may actually be higher than 40” for amperage and nothing on voltage.

        We’re making an awful lot of assumptions to scream that their reported input power is wrong when just a slight increase in amps and drop in volts could explain everything. Also recall their “joule heating” is not simply the Inconel heater wires, but the power line loss of the copper wires feeding the system.

        That’s the point I’ve been trying to make — especially since they are measuring from the main line, as well as after the controller, so this isn’t subject to calculation error like calculating joule heating is, and 2 or 3 KW is a little high for their set up to handle (based on watt densities I’m finding for similar wires and inconel).

        • fact police

          Ged> Or their power measurement is correct and we are missing something about their table 7 -calculation-.

          I agree. Those are the options.

          Ged> I find it far easier to assume a math error or lack of our knowledge of all their math parameters, than an instrumentation error; especially since our example is the dummy run and we are given only a vague “may actually be higher than 40” for amperage and nothing on voltage.

          The current can be determined from the power, so it’s only a question if we trust their calculation of the power. And even that only depends on them using the *same* value for the wire resistance in both calculations, and a measure of the current. Using the same resistance seems reliable enough, so this also comes down to an instrumental question of their measurement of the current.

          And others have shown that a very simple reversal of a current clamp can produce a factor of 3 error in the power, so that is not that difficult to imagine.

          Ged> We’re making an awful lot of assumptions to scream that their reported input power is wrong when just a slight increase in amps and drop in volts could explain everything.

          I disagree. The only assumption is that they measure the current correctly, and use the same value for the wire resistance in both cases. Trusting the authors on that requires no more confidence than trusting they didn’t miss an inverted current clamp. And the latter involves a very rare scientific revolution.

        • Obvious

          Hmmm.

          • Obvious

            Then the total current into the dummy must be 34.12 A.

          • AlbertNN

            The sum of the currents going into the E-cat at any one time is always zero. It is not possible to add RMS-currents, as the RMS value only give you the magnitude, and not the phase. It is possible to add the three time-variant currents in phasor representation, and then the sum would still be zero.

          • Obvious

            19.7 amps average current is flowing towards the reactor through each of the C1 wires. Presumably this current returns down one or two of the other two C1 wires, depending on phasing. What is the total current flowing into the wiring (heater and all) by which heat is made? (IE: what amount of current is the electrical company going to charge you for? Certainly not the instantaneous zero current (that would be nice).)

          • AlbertNN

            The sum of the currents in the three wires going to the E-cat must be zero. This is a consequence of the law of charge conservation, and expressed by Kirchoff’s laws.

            The electrical company is not charging for current, they are charging for power, J or Ws. Also commonly expressed as Wh.

          • Obvious

            The 3 phase electrical line has constant voltage.

            The electrical company cannot charge for energy if they cannot measure the total current moving through 3 phases and add them together and get a number bigger than zero.

            The three phases can be treated as a single phase.

          • AlbertNN

            Please study the theory of electrical engineering and three phase systems. None of your statements this time are correct.

          • Obvious

            I’m obviously not describing my point or question clearly, so I’m not getting any help here. Clearly I do not deal with 3 phase power often.
            Is the total current consumption of the entire dummy assembly, including cables:
            A) 19.7 A (the average of three phases, which are balanced)
            B) a factor of 19.7 A due to three phases (times 1.73)
            C) a sum of 19.7 A due to three phases
            D) a factored sum of some sort

          • AlbertNN

            Current is never consumed. It is talked about like that sometimes, but what you actually are talking about, and what you should add, is power, as in Watts.

          • Obvious

            Summing the power in each phase will give the total power for the system.
            But that requires knowing either U or R. If I’m trying to solve for R or U (V), I would like to know what the total I is. We have a P value.
            Is the 486 W for the dummy run the instantaneous Power, or the total power?

  • LuFong

    FYI from the report, “The other IR camera was primarily used to frame the hollow rods containing the power cables, and its position was changed often in the course of the test. When experimental conditions were seen to be constant, it would be pointed towards various parts of the reactor as well as of the rods, in order to verify the symmetry of heat emission and thus yield a more comprehensive picture of the thermal behavior of the system.” [Emphasis mine]

    Good post. Will give me something to read and think about over the weekend!

    • Dr. Mike

      LuFong,
      Thanks for pointing this out. Their statement seems to say that they saw no obvious non-uniformity of the active runs as compared to the dummy run (or they probably would have reported it). Looking forward to seeing your comments on the rest of the post.
      Dr. Mike

      • LuFong

        Yes, I think we can reasonably infer that they looked for temperature gradients and hotspots over the reactor core and that if they found them they would have pointed these out since it would affect the heat calculations.

    • Obvious

      Using the formula and currents described in the dummy calculations, and inserting a current value 2.5 times higher (C1 current at 49.25 A [2.5x 19.7), and C2 current at 24.63 A [2.5 x 9.85]), then the cable Joule loss result is (31.84 + 10.23) = 42.07 W.

      • fact police

        And if the current is 2.5 times higher, then the power input (and the power in the coils) will be 2.5^2 = 6.25 times higher than in the dummy run, which is about 2800W, not 900W.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          You assume that the resistances of the coils are constant, or nearly constant. But that is not what one might expect in case that strong magnetic fields and/or superconductivity are involved (see the posts below).

          • fact police

            Yes. I’ve repeated the assumption of constant resistance over and over, but in this case I didn’t. But a variable resistance is not consistent with what happens on day 10 when they increase the power from 785.79 W to 923.71 W, and the joule heating increases by almost exactly the same proportion, indicating in this range the resistance is constant. And it would take a reduction of the resistance by a factor of 3 to account for the discrepancy.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Maybe the supposed magnetic (or whatever) effect remains stable during the operation. At least, it could explain the difference between the dummy run and the active runs. In any case, we need more information from the authors. I hope that they have recorded both currents and voltages for the whole period.

          • Obvious

            What if we use pure nickel wire for the reactor resistor, rather than Inconel? All standard alloys of Inconel melt below 1425° C anyways.

          • AlbertNN

            The currents measured are to low to give high magnetic fields where anything exotic might happen. And the resistance wires used according to the paper are not superconducting at high temperatures.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            The magnetic fields which have been measured by DGT are far too strong that you could explain them as a result of the supplied currents. They must have been caused by the reaction. High-temp superconductivity in the context of LENR has been hypothesized by various authors. However, I don’t know if there are reliable data on this effect.

        • Obvious

          Except that we have a measured power consumption that does not agree with that. If we cannot trust the measured quantities, then the entire Joule heating discussion is a waste of time, since those measurements are part of the Joule calculation.

      • Dr. Mike

        fact police,
        Again thank you for your careful explanation to Ged.
        Dr. Mike

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Yes, but if the reactor itself generates electric energy that is transferred back to the power supply unit, this would contribute also to the joule heating of the wires. One could not deduce the supplied energy from the measured currents.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Dr. Mike,

    We have been planning to work off Ikegami’s proposal of the operation of the low temp ECat in the powder cell.

    A hybrid interim test in the sparky cell.

    We have already agreed that in the short term we add extra coils further from the core to do RF – Bob H says at a later time he is experienced in how to add these onto the power waveform.

    • Dr. Mike

      Bob,
      That’s great! Good luck with your work!
      Dr. Mike

      • Bob Greenyer

        And keep up yours!

        I have a question for you.

        You must first assume that one of the heating elements or supply phases has failed in some way. This would result in an “open delta” whose two remaining heater elements can only generate 33% of the required heat output. Now assume that the controller compensates by changing the phase angle on the controller to address the loss. The net result would be a move away from very short pulses to longer ones. The input power to the CompactFusion would be the same.

        So the question is, would this affect the dissipation in the supply wires?

        You will need this

        http://www.chromalox.com/catalog/resources/technical-information/Electrical-Wiring-Theory-Three-Phase-Equations-Wiring-Diagrams.pdf

        • Dr. Mike

          Bob,
          I assume the scientists were regularly measuring the current in each phase of the output from the TRIAC with the supplemental clamp-on ammeters and would have discovered an open heater coil. I checked your link above. This article states that if one coil in the delta wiring opens up the output power drops by 33% (midway down in the first column) so the coils would continue to generate 67% of their power. There is not enough information in the report to determine how the thermocouple output was used to make fine adjustments to the output power, but I assume that if the temperature of the reactor started to drop due to a loss of a coil, the feedback from the TC would cause the power regulator to increase the current to the remaining 2 coils to try to maintain temperature. I think that an event such as this would have been easily detected and would have been included in the report if it had happened.
          Dr. Mike

          • Bob Greenyer

            You are absolutely right about it being a 33% drop – 50% if a loss of a Y. Reminds me that I can’t always expect to perform best in the middle of the night!

            I love Live Open Science – no mistake lives long!

  • Obvious

    A doubling of the current input should result in a 4 times increase in Joule heating, due to I^2. Since the highest input is nearly double the dummy run, then normally I would expect to see something like ~28 W, rather than something in the 40 W range for the Joule Heating values.

    • Ged

      I think they just miscalculated the joule heating for table 7, or we’re missing that the joule heating is a huge summation of all the wires that are conducting electricity anywhere along the path, and something is being added in that wasn’t in the dummy example. But I think they just misreported since the input power is an actual measured quantity but the joule heating is not. And we do not know the data used to calculate the joule heating during the live run, only their example on the dummy (i.e. we get no amperage or voltage data for the live run, at least that I can find).

      • Obvious

        The Compact Fusion Triac uses 1.3W per amp load per phase. Maybe that got added in to the Joule heating for the fueled run? (wild guess)

      • Dr. Mike

        Ged,
        The Cu wire Joule heating in table 7 actually agrees with the statement on page 3 that the normal operating current was 40-50 Amps. On page 14 the authors stated that Joule heating for Table 7 for the active run was calculated in the same manner as for the dummy run; “We may calculate the dissipated heat of the limited extent of the dummy reactor: the results relevant to the E-Cat will be given in Table 7, due to the fact the average current values changed from day to day”.
        Dr. mike

    • Ged

      Well, looking back at the paper, we see they have a controller range of 40-50 amps. On page 3: “The regulator is driven by a potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e. the current through the resistor coils, normally 40-50 Amps)”.

      That means we have an I^2 range of 56% variance (1600 vs 2500 for I^2 at the two ends of that range). Let’s add just 50% to the joule heating calculated to the dummy, thus the 7 becomes 10.5 W. Now let’s take 4 times 10.5 W = 42W.

      Hey look, everything is now explained if we simply assume the dummy run was near the 40 amp end of their range and the experimental run was up at the 50 amp end of their range. Meanwhile, volts can vary and input power stay the same 900 W while joule heating can change substantially.

      Nothing strange at all guys, just us forgetting variance, that they themselves report, is a thing.

  • Dr. Mike

    kasom,
    I would guess IH is concentrating on the 1MW plant because getting this plant running is a contractual obligation. I believe that everyone involved would rather be working on the development of the Hot-Cat.
    Dr. Mike

    • Omega Z

      Focus on the 1Mw Lt-Cat is just the logical next step.
      Both from a business and R&D point of view.

      Focusing on the Ht-Cat is just an observers wish point of view…
      It is a lot of R&D away from useful work.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The input heat is a driver not a limiter. As you indicated feedback would prohibit it acting as a limiter.

    There is another driver which acts independently of the heat which it produces and can be used as both a driver and a choke, so there is no logical requirement for any other form of output than heat. Which is not to say that there is not any other form of output energy.

    • Ged

      Resistance need not change, the controller need only drop the voltage and voila. We already have an amperage range of 40-50 going on here, so is resistance constantly changing to drive these amp changes?

      I have tried to find where they use current to calculate input power, but I haven’t located it. I see they measured it with the PCE directly, not calculating it just from current (which wouldn’t work without voltage anyways).

      Also, we see the control system varying the amperage to hold input power steady in the paper itself, invalidating your claims that that can only change by resistance changes. To wit (page 7): “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”

      Even further, we see on page 3, that the power supply itself would not be able to handle the kilowatts you guys are trying to claim, such as : “its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W” (I am assuming that’s for each of the three channels independently, so 1080 W total).

      Your claims that voltage and amperage to the system can’t fluctuate while holding input power the same without changing resistance is demonstrably mistaken according to the paper itself when they saw current being cut back and had to up the power to counter it. I guess that is your Waterloo?

      • Ged

        They don’t report only a 2-fold increase in power dissipated by the coils. I do not see where you get that from, so if I’m mistaken there, please show me the reference.

        What they do show, according to page 7 for instance, is the input power directly detected going to the reactor — this is not the dissipation by the coils, but the electric draw of the system. Therefore, you can have a 2-fold increase in input power and a 6 fold (50% more than 4 fold, and if you look at page 3, you’ll notice their I^2 is varying by at least 56%) in joule heating, simply by having their feedback controller drop voltage to keep current pumped. We see them having to modulate this during the actual run.

    • Dr. Mike

      Thomas,
      I believe you are correct that Rossi’s patent application is not going to provide protection for a Hot-Cat design device. I don’t think Rossi had a good enough theory when the patent was applied for to write up a good all-encompassing patent. Also, I don’t see how he thought he could get a patent without disclosing the entire invention, including the catalyst. I agree that there is probably enough disclosed in the Lugano repiort on the Hot-Cat design and fuel to make it non-patentable. Your question is a good one!
      Dr. Mike

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I agree with Ged’s statement that you cannot draw conclusions about the input energy on the basis of the values for joule heating. You would have to know either all the resistances or the applied voltages. One hypothetical explanation for the results is that the reaction produces a magnetic field which has an effect on the wires. It is known that LENR can generate very strong fields; for example, DGT have measured 1.6 Tesla at 20 cm distance (!) from their reactor. However, it is unclear if that field was static, pulsating or alternating. A non-static field should cause the reactor to act as an electric generator. Therefore, the effective resistance of the coils would be altered significantly, so that any calculation on the basis of the behaviour of inconel wires under normal circumstances would be invalid.

    • Dr. Mike

      Andreas,
      Good point about the magnetic fields. It would be interesting if anyone reading these comments knows if Inconel wire has a large magneto-resistance effect. It would require the resistance to change by a factor of 3 going from the dummy run to the active run, but then have the resistance in the Inconel wires increase by about 1% when the active power was increased after 10 days into the experiment.
      Dr. Mike

  • jousterusa

    What is so exciting about E-Catworld these days is reading of the global coverage of the TIP report, ideas about the E-Cat’s implementation, Rossi’s reaction to it, and the general freshet of news bytes from all over the globe welcoming a device that will forever change the world. I am extremely interested in learning how the Chinese developers of the E-Cat industrial park and fabrication plant are doing, thinking and building – news that is hard to come by!

    • Ophelia Rump

      Yes.

      • jousterusa

        Are you a single woman, Ophelia, by any chance? I’m a single guy…

        “Nymph, in thy orisons, be all my sins remembered?”

  • georgehants

    Dr. Mike I understand what you are saying, do you agree that is a terrible situation for science to be in?
    Do you agree that it is up to scientists to put that faulty situation right?
    Why are they not on strike or protesting at the White House or Parliament?
    From these pages it appears very few of them have any sort of care or concern for the terrible life harming crimes being committed by science.

    • Dr. Mike

      georgepants,
      I think that science has always been in this terrible situation. New ideas always are hard to accept. It certainly is up to scientists to spread the word on LENR, but I think it will continue to progress slowly until results get published in journals that have a large audience. Perhaps a successful installation of Rossi’s 1MW plant will be the catalyst to finally get LENR moving forward.
      Dr. Mike

  • Giuliano Bettini

    fact police> “However, compared to the dummy run, the joule heating increases
    6-fold, whereas the claimed heater power increases only 2-fold. For a constant
    resistance the heater power and the joule heating should be proportional. So
    something clearly changes from the dummy run to the real run. That’s the
    conundrum.”

    Maybe the resistance changes from “dummy” to “run” because there are two different heater helices? Images apparently show two different helices.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=754649834605839&set=gm.1001924113156826&type=1

    • Fortyniner

      Lots of very informed speculation there – probably one or two guesses are very close to the truth. More info is required to home in on the actual design, but as that was the last published test, we are not now likely to learn much more.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Is there a rule which says the nickel in the resistors cannot also react?

      • Dr. Mike

        Ophelia,
        The coils are on the outside of the alumina so they would not be exposed to any hydrogen.
        Dr. Mike

        • Ophelia Rump

          Hydrogen penetrates. I also believe there was some question of the role of the hydrogen if the nickel is actually the fuel.

          If you want to explain anomalous heat in a nickel resistor in an inexplicable reaction which has nickel for a fuel, it might be unwise to rationalize away the obvious.

          • Dr. Mike

            Ophelia,
            The conversion of the isotopes of Ni all to Ni62 contributes some output heat. However, the reactor was working well when it was shut down so the conversion of the Ni all to Ni62 isn’t the fuel of the reactor unless the reactor just happened to be stopped as the last of the Ni was converted. It is more likely that the Ni reactions are actually competing with the primary reactions, and possibly the reactor works better when all of the Ni has been converted to Ni62. (Just a guess.) It is more likely that hydrogen is the real fuel (and maybe also the lithium). I would also guess that if the reactor had even a small leak, the hydrogen would leak out and the reaction would stop.
            Dr. Mike

      • not clear what is the structure of the e-cat…
        given the apparent change in resistance (beware it can be just bad assumption as people used Rapp=P/Ieff^2…with switched triphase in V mode not delta) one hypothesis is a negative temperature coefficient, and in an E-cat the evidence hypothesis is that it is a LENR hydride, the “mouse”…

        speculation, but at least it is not a conspiracy like to inverted current clamps on only the active test, with strange controlbox that in that crazy context, consume energy in both blank (right wiring) and active (wrong wiring)…
        all without any of the testers having any suspicion…

        at least an international conspiracy involving Exxon, Putin, with Total boss assassination, Ukraine MH17 and ISIS/CIA collusion, is more probable.

    • Dr. Mike

      Giuliano,
      There are actually 3 helices wound on the alumina, one for each phase of the 3 phase power supply. The idea behind the dummy run was to see how the reactor heated with just electrical power supplied so that its effect could be subtracted out of the LENR effect. An ideal control for the experiment would have been to heat the reactor up to the temperature during the active run just using the electrical heating.
      Dr. Mike

  • DocSiders

    In less time than it has taken “us” here to calculate power in’s/out’s, the TIP group or IH could have done (or still could do) a dummy run at the same power inputs as the “charged runs”. Providing data that is needed. Required actually.
    It is unforgivable that the control run wasn’t run like any normal control run.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Correct. If you want to split hairs:

    A nonlinear component – e.g. a diode, or a varistor, could in principle change the ratio at different input powers. But a X3 change is asking a lot and there is no conceivable nonlinear component that could operate as the heater does.

    The beauty of the total power/joule heating power ratio is that it is insensitive to almost everything! And the data from which it is derived is securely stored by the testers direct from the PCE-830. So any possible mistake here can be resolved.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Several have done so. You might like to check out andrea.s for detailed knowledge of the PCE-830 on Mats Lewan’s comment thread [url=https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/interview-on-radio-show-free-energy-quest-tonight/]here[/url] where the whole matter is debated at great length.

    The power calculations needed here require somone with basic knowledge of ohms law, KCL, KVL and phasors. That many have. On this thread you will find that fact police has been entirely correct.

  • georgehants

    Thomas, I am unable to understand what your comment has to do with what I have written.
    Please answer, who is meant to Research and investigate new possible phenomenon in this World if not main-line academic science etc.
    Or should they just sit on their arses and wait for that phenomenon to be researched and proven by small people like Mr. Rossi et al.
    If you think that, then what the devil are these wasters being paid for?

  • georgehants

    AlbertNN, you appear to be saying these academic clowns only look at something after it has been fully proven by other people and never do their own Research etc.
    As I ask above, then what are these wasters there for, just to spend taxes on there entertainments and refreshment.
    Maybe you are saying on unproven rubbish like GW or hot fusion.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    Well said! I think that even with the data from the PCE-830 there still may be a problem. If the Insertion of the pulse generator affected the power calculation by the PCE-830, the power data from the PCE-830 may not be any good. I believe that they reported the data they read off the meter (column 2, Table 7, page 22 of the report). i also would hope they are carefully going over all of their data and their electrical set-up so that they can eventually explain a possible error in their work, or better yet, why there is no error.

  • Ged

    Way too many replies so have to do one here.

    The whole powering of the e-cat is controlled by a microcontroller, a little mini-computer, which is likely a smaller version of this one http://ccipower.com/system/files/brochures/Compact%20FUSION%20Datasheet_0.pdf based on visual inspection. Notice that with this controller: “Output is controlled linearly with respect to command
    signal and can be set to the average or RMS value of the voltage or current, as well as true signal and can be set to the average or RMS value of the voltage or current, as well as true instantaneous power or external feedback”.

    – People are conflating joule heating by the intrinsic resistance of the conductive wires (this is -not- the voltage of the entire circuit), and the voltage of the entire circuit controlled by the microcontroller. It can change the voltage and amperage however it wants to hold whichever parameter, or total power, steady according to what is set. It has potentiometers and other sensors as you can see that allows it to monitor amperage, voltage, and power (that’s exactly what the brochure says, which sounds a little redundant on the surface), and vary them all.

    When they talk about input power, they are talking about the microcontroller. On page 7 we see them set the microcontroller to hold the power at slightly above 900 W after the current -dropped- due to the microcontroller’s feedback system deciding it needed to cut back on the amperage when the power was set near 790 W, something the authors didn’t want and which prompted them to let the microcontroller to 900 W. They then measured with PCE’s and saw that indeed the controller, a computer with its own internal systems to monitor and modify voltage/amps/power, was drawing and outputting roughly 900 W just as it was set to do.

    That’s all well and good. We see the controller in action, and we see that it can -dynamically change voltage and amperage- being pushed to the e-cat’s circuitry based on feedback.

    – Joule heating is -not- the input power the controller is modifying. This is being horribly conflated. Joule heating is due to the intrinsic resistance of the wire conductors per length by cross sectional area, this has nothing to do with the circuit’s resistors and over all voltage driving power on the circuit, and is a loss of power due to transmission. If one pumps the input power by pumping the voltage being applied by the controller across the circuits, then joule heating doesn’t change, as it’s a function of amperage. This is why US houses are 20 A and 115 V circuits mostly, and why high tension lines are high voltage — this is why neither of these two things commonly burst into flames despite the high amounts of wattage flowing through them.

    The controller is entirely capable of upping the input power by driving up voltage, that is part of its specification and dynamic control system. But only the amperage being applied to the circuit counts for the power lost as heating, not of the resistors, but of the conducting copper.

    – A super conductor has a joule heating of 0. This is because the voltage drop intrinsic to the superconducting wires is 0. The voltage applied to the circuit is -non 0- and input power is -non 0- when you are charging a super conductive magnet to 14.6 T. But there is a 0 joule heating due to a 0 voltage drop by the wire itself. Completely different voltage under discussion between the circuit and power supply voltage versus the intrinsic voltage drop of a length of conductive wire. Again, superconductors have 0 joule heating, no matter how many amps or volts you apply to a circuit containing them. That’s why they are the holy grail of transmission technology.

    – The joule heating we see in the paper in the dummy reactor is very clearly explained: 7 W at ~ 20 A and when you jump it up to the amps in the live run the error range easily includes the 41W reported. The steadiness of the input power is due to the controller being dynamic and attempting to hold its set point however it feels like, nothing mysterious here. The voltage applied to the circuit by the controller -is not the same voltage drop intrinsic to the wires per length by cross section that is used to calculate joule heating-: that is an intrinsic material property of the wires and if they had used super conductors the joule heating would have been 0.

    There is no mystery here, nothing funky, and nothing amiss as far as I can see.

    • Obvious

      Just a quick note. The amperage clearly exceeds 40 A total in the live reactor run, since each C1 lead in the dummy run is carrying 19.7 A. Therefore a total of 59.1 A is being delivered to the dummy.

      • LuFong

        The total of all currents in 0 for 3 phase, that is at any one time one current is the opposite of the sum of the other two? I pose this as a question because I’m trying to reconcile what you just said with my understanding of a 3 phase power in a delta configuration.

        • Obvious

          The total of all currents cannot be zero is any work is being done.

      • Dr. Mike

        Obvious,
        The current to each of the 3 Inconel coils in the dummy run is 19.7/2 = 9.85A (See the joule heating discussion on pages 13-14 of the report.). This current is set at a value about 2.35 times greater for the first 10 days of the active run and then increased to about 2.5 times greater than the dummy run for the rest of the active run.
        Dr. Mike

        • Obvious

          I should have said the total for amps consumed by the entire device wiring assembly (including the reactor), before subtracting the Joule heating. The total amps, using the three phase power equations should then be 34.12 A, for the entire device wiring assembly of the dummy run (rather than adding the sums of the currents in the three leads).

  • Obvious

    A much simpler version would be to have a few mechanical thermo switches (bimetallic or something along those lines) in the reactor that could series/parallel the resistances differently, depending on temperature. I doubt that something like that would survive long in that heat….

  • Omega Z

    Rossi doesn’t need to raise money. That is Industrial Heats department now that they are the owners of the technology.

    As to how convincing the test was, I don’t’ think it is Rossi’s intent to provide indisputable results to the gallery. Not in best interests of a business development.

    Most of the complaints & questions about the test would be valid if this were strictly a scientific endeavor, But it is not. We need to keep this in mind in the discussion. There is a ton of data that we Don’t, and Wont have access to. It will be provided only to a few with a need to know.

    I have no doubt that If Rossi/IH made every detail available, Dozens of large entities would setup a small R&D lab to replicate it, But not a single one of them would build any products for the market.

    They would focus on developing an alternate technique that could be patented to protect their Billions it will cost to bring such a product to market. This would delay LENR introduction to market by many years.

  • Thomas Clarke

    (1) fact police was right. However more current less voltage means less resistance. You don’t control the resistance, so more current means more voltage and more power.

    (2) The current for the active run was measured and used to calculate power. We therefore can calculate it exactly. The ratio of currents is sqrt the ratio of powers, which is of order 6 => roughly 2.5 X current. The dummy current was 19.7A, so the active current 50A.

    (3) It is true the powers and currents don’t match unless you suppose a X3 change in heater resistance. That has not been ruled out. Why assume the testers measured current wrong? And why think that measuring current wrong is more likley than measuring power wrong?

    There is a proposed mechanism which explains the wrong measured powers precisely – that when the clamps were reattached before the active run obe was the wrong way around. i know of nothing to explain a X3 current error.given the dummy and active calculations are indentical.

    (4)
    ivanc – the currents and powwrs are all measured by a PCE-830 which can happily deal correctly with a triac waveform.

    • Dr. Mike

      Thomas,
      How do you think the pulse generator was hooked up to the circuit? If I were designing the Hot-Cat, i would have put the pulse generator on a separate winding. Do you think it was just connected across 2 phases of the 3 phase TRIAC output? Could the way the pulse generator was hooked up effect the TRIAC output power measurement?
      Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    Thanks for the link. I wanted to see what the manual had to say about how the meter needed to be hooked up.
    Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    bkrharold,
    I’m sorry that you find this post perplexing. The electrical engineers among our audience all realize that there is a discrepancy in the Lugano data between the measured input power on the PCE-830 meter and power generated in the heater coils based on the current flowing through them. I don’t remember seeing a single comment where anyone disputed the analysis of the fuel and ash showing that nuclear reactions had taken place.
    My other major point of this post is that doesn’t seem possible to generate 3000W of power in 0.55 grams of Ni without melting the Ni. Since my background in thermal engineering is limited to one course in thermodynamics that i took many years ago, I was hoping someone in the audience would have the background to calculate or estimate a maximum power generation per gram of Ni using assumptions based on the environment of the Hot-Cat. Do you think 3000W could be generated in .55 grams of Ni without melting the Ni? For reference, a Ni wire that’s 1mm in diameter and 8cm in length would be about .55 grams of Ni.
    Dr. Mike

    • LCD

      From any model where the heat is generated as a black body from the nickel internally it’s not even close, if guess 3000 C minimum.

      • LCD

        Just doesn’t make sense

  • Obvious

    Mike, not that this affects the discussion regarding it much, but where did the .55 grams come from?

    • Dr. Mike

      Obvious,
      On page 29 in about the middle of the 4th paragraph, the authors found that the 1 gram of “fuel” contained .55 gram of Ni.
      Dr. Mike

      • Obvious

        Thanks.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    The manual is clear that you need to hook up the current sensors correctly. Are you familiar enough with the PCE-830 to know what happens to the power reading if one of the sensors was hooked up backwards? Would the measured power to a 3-phase delta connected resistive load only be about 33% of the real value if one of the current sensors was backwards? (or maybe somewhere in the range of 30-36% if the load resistances varied by up to 10%?)
    Dr. Mike

  • Thomas Clarke

    Whatever their qualifications, and competence in some of the needed areas, they have been provably deficient in two areas relating to electrical power:
    (1) they incorrectly stated the current ration between C1 and C2 circuits as 1/2 when it could be no more than 1/sqrt(3). This does not affect the results of the test, because it cancels out – though there is a very small second order change. Nevertheless it is a mistake.

    (2) they did not notice the glaring anomaly between input powrs measured and currents measured. At the very least they should have note this and revised their statement about the heating wire being inconel, which does not have an unusual negative temperature coefficient.

    Competent testers would also have been suspicious of such an unusual discrepancy and cross-checked whether the resistance really changed in such a way with temperature (from the active test warmup data) and whether the total input power was measured correctly by checking the powers for each of the lines to ensure no clamp was reversed.

  • Dr. Mike

    Mike,
    I certainly agree with you that a dispersed bed of nanoparticles or microparticles are a lot different than any solid piece of Ni. However, Rossi has told us that once the Ni particles melt the reaction stops. (Also I have melted a lot of metal in an evaporator and the first thing the metal does in clump into a ball from surface tension.) I like your statement “Pure nickel melting could provide a self-modulating feedback loop. As
    the crystal lattice loses its integrity, it would also lose its capacity
    for supporting Bloch waves, deuterium loading, phononic resonance or
    other lattice effects that may be involved. As the material cools and
    recrystallizes, the effect returns.” If you look at the ash particle #1 in Figure 2, page 43 of the report, and compare it to particle #1 in the fuel in Figure 1 on the same page, it appears that there has been a slight amount of melting on the surface of the Ni. (It would have been nice if Figure 1 had the same magnification as Figure 2.)
    I didn’t study the radiant heat calculation since it is out of my field of knowledge so I really don’t have a comment on the radiant energy calculation. However, since you do have some knowledge in this field maybe you could answer a couple of questions. First, if the Ni particles were spread in a line at the bottom of the alumina cylinder and were generating 1660W of power, what would you expect the difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the alumina cylinder? Second, if the Ni particles were uniformly distributed inside of the alumina cylinder, what temperature would the Ni particles have to be at to see a 1400C temperature on the outside of the alumina cylinder? it would be helpful if you could even make an estimate for the answers to these two questions!
    Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    bkrharold,
    I don’t believe that any errors in the Lugano test are due to deception. However, it doesn’t appear that they had anyone on the team that was an expert in electrical engineering although several probably had some knowledge in this field. I don’t really think that the reputations of anyone on the team will be damaged if there was an error in something that no one on the team had expertise in. Remember the group of physicists that claimed to have measured neutrinos traveling at faster than the speed of light. This group needed outside help to determine what was wrong with their measurements.
    Double checking testing protocols does not help if no one realizes that there is a fundamental problem with the some of data. The important outcome of all this discussion is that the Lugano team will go back over the data and set up, determine what is causing the discrepancy in the data, and issue a revised report that addresses that discrepancy. They also have the opportunity to add to the report many of the suggestions that have been made for improvement.
    Dr. Mike

  • Hank Mills

    Two facts:

    1 – The dummy test found perfect unity.

    2 – The correctly measured the power consumption of the control box that matched the documentation.

    If the clamps had been inverted the above would have been impossible.

    This totally rules out the possibility that the clamps were inverted.

    • DickeFix

      You are correct. For the clamp theory to be true, the clamp(s) need to have been reversed during the loading of the fuel. According to the paper, the electrical data was recorded every 2 second so the research team can easily debunk or confirm this theory by comparing the recorded data of effective load resistance R=P/I^2 before and after the current was turned off for fuel change. Unfortunately, the research group has remained silent for weeks despite that Giancarlo had this question sent to Prof. Hanno Essén soon after the ITP report was realeased and Prof. Essén forwarded the question to Prof. Bo Höistad.

      Despite this silence and regardless of the outcome, I respect the scientists involved and the funding agencies that supported them. Due to the controversial subject of LENR, the researchers were brave to do this experiment since there are research colleagues that regards LENR with the same skeptic attitude as they regard telephaty and telekinesi. I personally think it is a scientific duty to investigate phenomena that seem to contradict established theory until one understands the results fully, especially where the outcome has such a potential importance for mankind. This is equally true regardless if the error is found in the theory or in the measurement procedure.

      The latter seem to have been the case when SP Technical Research Institute during summer 2012 tested the old version of E-Cat using a true RMS instrument to measure power and found the input power two to three times higher than the input power Rossi had measured. SP concluded then that the COP was close to unity.

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/10/nyteknik-reports-on-halted-swedish-investment-in-hydrofusion-following-tests/

      Hence, even if the post analysis of the current data would change the conclusion of the paper and instead again indicate a COP close to unity, it is an important scientific result. Hence, if that turns out to be the case, I sincerely hope the scientists involved are not ridiculed. If they followed good scientific conduct and didn´t consciously change the measurement setup between the calibration and active test, it is naturally that they didn´t recheck the clamp orientations again. Still, in retrospect, it is strange that neither the scientists involved, nor external reviewers who have read the paper, discovered the discrepancy regarding the Joule heating that Giancarlo found.

      • good point.
        with logged data, if Ieff is logged, we should see current phase and apparent impedance and observe that if follow a process incompatible with a student error.

        I am afraid however that IH will ask for some trade secret to be protected

  • Oystein Lande

    Looking at the picture the control box looks like something from Control Concepts (CCIPOWER.com), which delivers SCR controllers. The testers possibly used a CCI Fusion 3 Phase power SCR (from the picture may be a Compact Fusion SCR power controller), and phase angle control, either with in-line or hybrid configuration.

    In that case: In addition to the PCE’s they could also get data acquisition from the control box. That one would definitely tell them delivered power. They would be able to do diagnostics, charting, do logging with the control box hooked up to a PC

  • Oystein Lande

    DickeFix:

    Possible answers to your questions:

    “1.An explanation how nuclear reactions can occur at low temperature”

    This is what has haunted the Cold Fusion / LENR science since it all started in 1989. Many theories from many nuclear scientists have been proposed. Any Rossi suggested theory, will be just that – a theory until other have confirmed the theory by experiments and measurements.

    “2. An explanation how nuclear reactions can occur without any radiation”

    Yet another issue that haunted the Cold Fusion / LENR science since it all started in 1989. Many theories from many nuclear scientists have been proposed. Any Rossi suggested theory, will be just that – a theory until other have confirmed the theory by experiments and measurements.

    “3. An explanation how all Ni isotopes and most other metals in the fuel can be converted to almost pure Ni62 in the ash”

    The ASH analysis is based on a sample representing 0,2% of total ASH weight. In my opinion we cannot base any types of conclusions on a 0,2% sample.
    Other than that “this 0,2% sample show high concentration of 62Ni.” Most likely this is NOT representative of the total. We may speculate that there has been some separation happening at 1400 degC.

    “4.An explanation why the generated power didn´t decrease with time despite the fuel was almost burnt out at the end”

    Concluding that the whole ASH sample had turned to Ni62 based on a 0,2% weight sample, is way too much of a assumption.

    “5. An explanation why the fuel consisted of natural Ni while Rossi repeatedly stated that enriched Ni-62 was an essential ingredient in the fuel”

    Did he? Why not ask Rossi on JONP

    “6. An explanation for the completely different ash compositions in ITP test 1 and 2”

    Comparing analysis based on 0,2% weight sample is not very scientific. But in this case also answers to question 1 & 2 apply.

    “7. An explanation why the electrical Joule heating increased 6 times when the stated input power only increased 2 times (Giancarlo)”

    This is strange. It seems there is a calculation error. Both in dummy and In real test. Could one have a larger calculation error? ANYHOW: In addition to the PCE’s they could also get data acquisition from the control box used from Control Concepts. That one would definitely tell them delivered power. They would be able to do diagnostics, charting, do logging with the control box hooked up to a PC. Hope they did…

    “8. An explanation of the unexpected measured current shapes which indicate a reversed current clamp (Andrea S.)”

    The picture shows OL all over. Probably not hooked up when picture was taken. But having two positive spikes followed by two negative spikes is possible in a three phase with angle control.

    “9. An explanation why the Ni didn´t melt if the power was generated by a reaction in the fuel (Dr. Mike)”

    This is one of the best questions I have seen. The 1 gram powder must have been distributed very evenly on the internal surface to achieve good heat exchange and not melt….

    “10. An explanation why the E-Cat gave COP=1 when SP Technical Research Institute
    (the swedish measurement calibration authority) tested it.”

    Not sure what this is related to.

    My own thoughts on the Ni-H LENR matter:

    My interest in Rossi is based upon what was done by Professor Sergio Focardi
    in the early 1990’s at the University of Bologna.

    He did nickel-hydrogen reactor experiments,and got Heat out larger than what could be explained by any chemical reactions.

    Focardi further published a few papers in the 1990’s on the subject in a scientific Journal (peer-reviewed ;-)… )

    Focardi S, Habel R, Piantelli F (January 1994): “Anomalous Heat
    Production in Ni-H Systems”. Il Nuovo Cimento A, Volume 107 A, Number 1, 163–167

    Focardi S, Gabbani V, Montalbano V, Piantelli F, Veronesi S (November 1998). “Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems”. Il Nuovo Cimento A, 111(11): 1233–1242. OCLC 204819206.

    Neutron emission in Ni-H systems. Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996), Volume 112, Number 9,
    921–931. Authors: Battaglia, Daddi, Focardi, Gabbani, Montalbano, Piantelli, Sona, Veronesi. Retrieved on SpringerLink.

    Later Rossi contacted Focardi with some creative ideas to possible increase power
    levels….

    So I’m still hopeful for LENR, even if the HOT cat turns out to be junk 😉

    Anyone knows if the 1 MW plant IH have delivered is based on HOT cats, or on the first version of lower temp cats..?
    regards
    Lande

    • about 4)
      there is an obvious answer… because the fuel is not nickel.
      note also that only the surface seems fully transmuted.
      the difference between the surface and bulk isotopic measurement le clear evidence of a real and complex phenomenon.

      note for the spikes timing question, that it seems clear that the E-cat is single phase, like for TPR1… there are two coils, probably for some stabilisation reason…

      anyway there are many question, but since we dn’t know the process but we have to stand on solid facts :

      1- inverting clamps polarity is a student error you can fix in second. it seems that even the PCE830 beep if you invert clamps. you can detect it because of abnormal power, negative or reactive, incoherent with logic… in that case the power of the controller would not look logic as it did. So PEC830 measured electric power correctly.

      2- Industrial Heat would never have risked their credibility in providing reactors they know did not work, to scientists, expecting they do incredibly improbable error, plus bad measurement.

      I admit however; following McKubre sad report, that the calibration is very insufficient.
      there is no rational possibility given what we know that COP=1 (emissivity change from 450 to 900W should be of 6x from nearly 1 to nearly 0) , but there is enough uncertainty to allow deniers to continue fooling the innocent readers with FUD.

      Unless the testers make a correction report, we will have to wait for Rossi’s factory delivery and LENR-Cities industrial partners names outing.

    • Dr. Mike

      Oystein Lande and DickeFix,
      My brother just sent me a link to another theory on LENR- thought you might be interested in reading it:
      http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0169v1.pdf
      I have looked at it it, but haven’t had time to digest it.

      Dr. Mike

    • fact police

      Lande wrote> “Possible answers to your questions:
      “3. An explanation how all Ni isotopes and most other metals in the fuel can be converted to almost pure Ni62 in the ash”
      The ASH analysis is based on a sample representing 0,2% of total ASH weight. In my opinion we cannot base any types of conclusions on a 0,2% sample.”

      But the point of the analysis is that we *should* base conclusions on a 0.2% sample. The exercise was meant to show that the nuclear reactions are happening. If the sample is not representative, then we can’t know there isn’t simple isotopic fractionation going on, and all the Ni-58 is in a different part of the sample. Such an effect without a theoretical mechanism to explain it seems crazy doesn’t it? But radiation-free complete transmutation of Ni-58 to Ni-62 (even if only in isolated places) is a far less plausible without a theoretical mechanism to explain it. At least fractionation doesn’t require the concentration of MeV energies into single atomic sites to explain it.

      Lande> “Other than that “this 0,2% sample show high concentration of 62Ni.” Most likely this is NOT representative of the total. We may speculate that there has been some separation happening at 1400 degC.”

      Yes, and if that’s possible, then you have neutralized evidence that nuclear reactions are happening.

      Lande> “”9. An explanation why the Ni didn´t melt if the power was generated by a reaction in the fuel (Dr. Mike)”

      This is one of the best questions I have seen.”

      This question applies and was raised for Levi2013 as well, and was raised in the context of Levi2014 a few days after the report was released:

      (see ecatnews.com/?p=2669&cpage=4#comments, and search for the post titled “Cats Have Nine Lives”)

      Lande> “The 1 gram powder must have been distributed very evenly on the internal surface to achieve good heat exchange and not melt….”

      That’s not good enough. The rate of heat flow is proportional to a coefficient of heat transfer and the temperature difference, and there is no coefficient large enough to account for such a power with a few tens of degrees temperature difference. For comparison, consider a 1 kW water kettle. In that case the source of heat is some 1000 degrees above the material it is transferring its heat to, and the contact area is if anything much greater. You could not transfer power at twice that rate from 1 gram of material that is only 55 degrees higher in temperature. It’s nonsense.

      Lande> “My interest in Rossi is based upon what was done by Professor Sergio Focardi in the early 1990’s at the University of Bologna. He did nickel-hydrogen reactor experiments,and got Heat out larger than what could be explained by any chemical reactions. Focardi further published a few papers in the 1990’s on the subject in a scientific Journal (peer-reviewed ;-)… )”

      The 1994 Focardi paper did not use any sort of reliable calorimetry. Instead, they just measured the temperature at one or two places of a device cooled unpredictably by the ambient air.

      A group from CERN reproduced their observations and explained them without excess heat by thermal properties that depend on the uptake of hydrogen (Cerron-Zeballos et al, Il Nuovo Cimento 109A (1996) 1645).

      This error was confirmed by their own work in the 1998 Focardi paper, but instead of correcting the error in calorimetry, they continued to make claims based on the same method, even if the temperature was measured at more points. To this day, that experiment has not been reproduced with reliable calorimetry.

  • Donk970

    We have two distinct groups of people talking about the Lugano test. One group believes the observations are real and wants to understand why. The other group fundamentally believes that the observations cannot be real and wants to know how the incorrect observations were produced. The problem for the second group is that they require ever more convoluted explanations that involve both truly gross incompetence on the part of the testers and truly brilliant and sustained deception on Rossi’s part. The idea that Rossi could maintain this level of deception while working closely with engineers and scientists at IH for several years is absurd. This means that either everyone at IH is in on the deception or there is no deception. A conspiracy that involves more than one person is bound to be discovered in short order so the only conclusion I can come to is that there is no deception. I also find it highly unlikely that the testers were so incompetent that they would miss something obvious like an inverted current clamp. What I see here is a group of people who have gone down a rabbit hole of speculation about errors in testing that could lead to virtually any conclusion because none of the people doing the speculating was actually in the lab when the tests were done. My feeling is that all those who are convinced that the test was so badly done that it reported a COP of 3+ instead of 1 need to set up a test rig to show how a dummy reactor could be made to show a COP of 3+ without the testers being aware of the error.

    • I agree, but the most crazy is that meanwhile serious LENr scientists agree that the calorimetry is inconcusive because of inssuficient calibration, and too much dependence on theory and assumption.

      sure something is working, but we cannot shut up deniers with such an imprcise test.

      I hope the testers can gather data in their test to clear the question of COP=1 or not…

      for COP>3 a new test is needed I fear.

      • Obvious

        If the COP is shown to be 1, then the isotope change process consumes no power.

        • Dr. Mike

          Obvious,
          The isotope change process could easily be contributing some power, but perhaps that power level is in the noise of the total power. When the COP is claimed to be 1, it is really 1 +/- the measurement error.
          Dr. Mike

          • Obvious

            OK.
            The isotope change process is so energy neutral, that it is within the range of error of the heat measurement of a large resistor, should the COP of the Lugano test unit be shown to be 1, within the range of error of power measurement, and making certain assumptions about the measurement of power, which may or may not be correct.
            LOL

          • Dr. Mike

            Obvious,
            Let’s wait for the revision of the report to see if the authors need to revise their COP calculation. Sometime in the future when we have both the corrected report and a solid LENR theory we will have (at least we better have) a good explanation for the Lugano results.
            Dr. Mike

          • Obvious

            I check for a newer, appended or modified version every day.

    • Dr. Mike

      Donk970,
      I certainly believe you are correct that we have two distinct groups of people talking about the Lugano test, however, I believe you are mistaken about how you categorize those two groups. I believe there is one group that is examining the data from the Lugano test carefully, seeing an inconsistency, and asking why. The second group wants to believe the final results of the Lugano test, but really don’t feel they need to ask why or understand how the results were achieved (or maybe feel they don’t have the background to understand the results). (There are others that really don’t fit into either of these groups.)
      I believe that most of the electrical engineers that read the Lugano report carefully, looked at the data in Table 7 on page 22 and asked themselves why wasn’t the Joule heating in the Cu wires about 11W for the first 5 files and about 12.5W for Files #6-16 (that is, directly proportional to the reported supplied powers)? The Lugano authors showed us they know how to calculate Joule heating with the calculations for the dummy run shown on pages 13-14. Either the reported power “consumption” is incorrect or the second time the Joule heating was calculated, it was done incorrectly in the Table 7 data. (This data would have also fit if the heater wire had a large negative temperature coefficient of resistance, however, not only does Inconel wire not have this property, the data from the report shows the resistance not to change when the active run temperature was increased from 1260C to 1400C.)
      So the issue is not whether some people believe or don’t believe in observations made by the Lugano authors, the issue is why the supplied power data is not consistent with the Joule heating data in Table 7. Why are several electrical engineers suggesting that one of the current clamps may have been reversed? Because if one clamp had been reversed, then you would expect to see the numbers presented in Table 7 for for the power “consumption” and the “Joule heating”. Their theory is a good fit to the data. There easily can be another explanation for the data presented in Table 7. We just need to get that explanation from the authors and verify that their explanation also fits the data presented, or maybe the authors will determine there is an error in Table 7, and they will correct that error.
      I believe that most of those people that are pointing out the error in the Table 7 data are actually good supporters of Rossi and his efforts to advance LENR.
      Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    Very balanced and very relevant!
    Dr. Mike

  • Mark Szl

    Here is another theory of what happened. The Internal Conflict Theory.

    Rossi did not want to let information about his IP to leak out. He placed a sample of diluted or different powder which still did work, not nearly as well as what his IP was based on but did work well enough for the test. This would also temporarily mislead other until IH was ready to go to market.

    The scientists testing found out! Ayayayaya!

    As payback they would teach IH/Rossi a lesson by connecting the clamp in reverse and generating more COP than expected by IH/Rossi.

    The full report was then released by “accident.” Ooopsy!!

    That caused all kinds of concerns because of undisclosed information and anomalous results beyond what people expected in both camps.

    This now would force IH/Rossi to hand over the real goods and let scientists do the test over like originally planned.

    And everyone lived happily ever after.

    • Dr. Mike

      Mark,
      I hope you are joking! Let me ask you and others this question. Why does the original E-Cat need to be shielded, but the Hot Cat used in Lugano not require shielding? One could assume that Rossi has determined this experimentally., but this would mean he knows the reactions in the Hot-Cat are different from the original E-Cat. Why was he surprised the the “ash” analysis?
      Dr. Mike

    • and rossi is a good prestidigitator able to swap sample in front of observers…
      He’d make money at las vegas.

      I call that extraordinary claim.

  • Dr. Mike

    DickeFix,
    I got a chance to read it more carefully. The theory seems to be applicable to the original E-Cat, but I didn’t see anything in the theory that could explain the Lugano “ash” results with no Cu being found. The one good thing that I saw in the theory is that it gives a means of overcoming the Coulomb barrier. Perhaps the understanding of the Coulomb barrier has been advanced.
    Dr. Mike

  • It is time to add up all the crazy conspiracy claims about lugano test, to defend the COP=1

    First the dummy was tested normally, and all was right.
    the COP was about1 and thus emissivity estimated at 0.7 was right
    the two powermeter were well wired and the two clamps were not inverted.

    then there is the electric conpiracy theory.

    for the second run, with powder, one clamp on the front power meter, and one in the middle powermeter were inverted.
    this led to an apparent COP of 3, because 2.7kWwas looking as 900W
    the problem is that there is still 33% of error, 33% more heat than measured
    note also that with time COP increase.

    note also that from 800W to 900W the apparent power increase much more tha linearily…

    this mean that IR cam have wrong emissivity… but since it was 0.7, correctly measured on the dummy at 450C, and since only twice the power is produced if COP=1 , to show a similar effect as 1400C the emissivity have to be very low.
    The lack of calibration at high temperature let doubt on such an effect but not to a point that COP=1 is possible…

    strangely the box behave as if it was consuming energy as written on the box…

    strangely the reactor don’t behave like a triphase load but as a single phase load driven by a triphase dimmer.

    note also that none of the testers detect the problem on any of the 2 powermeter, and that Industrial Heat have provided a reactor that is broken, hoping for such a mistake…

    this is why I call that a conspiracy theory.

    anyway the test is incomplete, not on the electric side, but on the calorimetry side by lack of high temp calibration, ruling out very low emissivity at top temperature.
    depending on litterature to estimate alumina emissivity is not enough.

    • AlbertNN

      We do not know if they disconnected the measurement equipment between the dummy run and the real one. Wo do not either know if the dummy run was done with two or three active phases. We do not know if they compared the power readings of the two power meters during the active run. We do know that one of the meters at one point gave an OL reading, and thus did not give any measurements to compare with at all.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Let us hope they mean RMS – but it is likely – this is what the PCE-830 will give.

    The 40-50A is not a clearly measured figure but you are right – it is consistent with the current they use for the Joule wire heating figures, which is mesured precisely, and shows COP 1.

    The waveforms they use are triac switched with a low duty cycle. That means the RMS voltage is less then the mains voltage by a factor of very roughly the duty cycle. That accounts for the difference.

  • Thomas Clarke

    @alain,

    I’ll highlight where we disagree as a set of comments on your arguments

    >First the dummy was tested normally, and all was right.
    >the COP was about1 and thus emissivity estimated at 0.7 was right
    >the two powermeter were well wired and the two clamps were not inverted.

    Correct.

    > for the second run, with powder, one clamp on the front power meter, and one in
    > the middle powermeter were inverted.[/quote]

    We have no evidence that the testers used two power meters for the active test. If they did, and cross-checked data, then yes, two clamps were reversed.

    > this led to an apparent COP of 3, because 2.7kWwas looking as 900W
    > the problem is that there is still 33% of error, 33% more heat than measured
    > note also that with time COP increase.

    That is not true. In the 1250C test – the first part of the active data – the COP – once the Joule heating is corrected – comes out at almost exactly 3. For the second part (1400C) the COP comes out as 20% higher than 3. The discrepancy is well within experiment berrors, mainly the assumption about Al2O3 emissivity. That is highly variable with temperature, frequency, and Al2O3 microstructure. The researchers use a single value from a reference and ignore transparency. A 20% error in this calculation is about what you would expect.

    > note also that from 800W to 900W the apparent power increase much more tha linearily…

    The error in the optical measurement relates to frequencies at which the Al2O3 is transparent. These increase more than linearly with temperature. So this is expected.

    > this mean that IR cam have wrong emissivity… but since it was 0.7, correctly
    > measured on the dummy at 450C, and since only twice the power is produced
    > if COP=1 , to show a similar effect as 1400C the emissivity have to be very low.

    I don’t understand this argment. We have a 20% error in power which would surely correspond to a 20% change in effective luminosity? So the real luminosity would need to be 0.4*1.2=0.48.

    > The lack of calibration at high temperature let doubt on such an effect
    > but not to a point that COP=1 is possible…

    The numbers above don’t seem to bear this out

    > strangely the box behave as if it was consuming energy as written on the box…

    I’m not sure in what way this is relevant?

    > strangely the reactor don’t behave like a triphase load but as a
    > single phase load driven by a triphase dimmer.

    I must disagree with that. The only difference between the two cases is the delta configuration of resistors. those are clearly present from the wiring, and measured by the testers. But in any case I do not see the relevance.

    > note also that none of the testers detect the problem on any of
    > the 2 powermeter, and that Industrial Heat have provided a reactor
    > that is broken, hoping for such a mistake…

    I note the lack of cross-checking from the testers. Clearly they did not do this or they would have noticed the Joule heating/input power discrepancy.

    Presumably IH tests this reactor in the same manner and observes the same apparent COP?

    > this is why I call that a conspiracy theory.

    You need Rossi involved and no-one else, if they believe him. He is CTO IH. Who would contradict his reading of power meters – it is not obvious?

    > anyway the test is incomplete, not on the electric side, but on the
    > calorimetry side by lack of high temp calibration, ruling out very low
    > emissivity at top temperature. depending on litterature to estimate
    > alumina emissivity is not enough.

    That is true, and introduces an unknown extra error. The X3 issue is different, it is a known error.

    • Dr. Mike

      fact police,
      Thanks for the correction- these calculations are outside my field of knowledge. What mechanisms did you assume for the conversion of the Ni isotopes to Ni62 Would we need a solid theory to really know the mechanisms? Finally, using your mechanisms, how much total energy should the reactor have produced form converting all 0.55 grams of Ni to Ni62? Note: even though the ash sample size was really small, the conversion of the Ni to Ni62 was confirmed by two measurement techniques.
      Dr. Mike

    • on the transparency the affair is closed since the alumina is opaque at the considered wavelength

      there was 2 powermeter

      anyway you assume that industrial heat sent a broken reactor hoping such a stupid error would be done, while most of the time they were not present.

      forget it.

      at worst there is a minor error in the report about some losses estimations, and sure an error in not calibrating at high temperature.
      Anyway the most probable is that critics are based on error and false assumptions.

  • Dr. Mike

    DickeFix,
    For your #1 the authors will have to claim that the heating coil resistance dropped by a factor of 3 for the first part of the active run. This is a good answer, but they need to tell us how this happened. They also need to tell us why the resistance of the coils did not change further when when the power was increased a the 10 day point in the active test. Maybe they will have a good theory for the resistance drop, and maybe not. (Of course, they may find that they made an error in the active power measurements.)
    For #2- If the current was 5.7A and the power 2,477W, the resistance was R= P/I^2 = 76.2 ohms. The resistance of each heating coil used in Lugano is only about 1.24 ohms. The TRIAC power controller reduces the RMS line voltage to the level required to supply the heater coils with the current required to produce a particular power.
    Dr. Mike