Rossi on the Clamps in the Lugano E-Cat Test

There has been considerable discussion on this site and elsewhere regarding the conjecture that misapplied current clamps could have been responsible for incorrect measurement readings on the Lugano E-Cat report. We have not heard any comment on the topic from the authors of the report as yet, and many are hoping for some response to come from them.

Today, however, Andrea Rossi has made this comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about this issue:

Boss:
This situation of the “changed position of the clamps” is very funny, while it is also an evidence of the correctness of the work of the Professors. Lacking real reasons to make a serious critic, these persons make “assumptions”: they “assume” that the clamps of the two PCE830 have been changed of position, and upon this “assumption” are writing all their lectures. I make you a simple example of what is going on: you are driving your car correctly, respecting all the laws related to driving, but suddenly a policeman stops you and says: ” I assume you were going overspeed, so you have to pay a fine”. No evidence at all that you have violated the speed limit, but, based on his assumption, he wants to fine you.
This situation is exactly the same.
THE SET UP OF THE EXPERIMENT, INCLUDED THE SET UP OF THE TWO PCE830 HAS BEEN DONE BY THE PROFESSORS, NOT BY ME. THE PROFESSORS CONTROLLED EVERY DAY THE CORRECTNESS OF ALL THE CONNECTIONS. ONE OF THEM (PROF ROLAND PETTERSON) WAS SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED TO THIS TASK. THE CLAMPS HAVE NEVER BEEN DISCONNECTED, EXCHANGED, DISPLACED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
Obviously the persons that have an agenda finalized to try to say negative things, not having serious things or citics to make, now fish in the lake of “assumptions” and “hypotesis”. From this lake you can fish out all the monsters you want, being just “assumptions”.
Photos: I was not allowed to make photos and therefore I do not have any photo. The Professors know perfectly how the clamps have been put and know perfectly that no displacement or changement has been done.
The level of this critic is so low, that it is not worth the time of an answer, so, as you rightly wrote, the temptation to spam it has crossed my brain, but you are always so kind that I decided to answer
Warm Regards,
A.R.

We do know that Andrea Rossi was at the testing site and must have seen the setup of the test. It’s interesting that he names Roland Pettersson here as the one responsible for the management of all the connections involved. Perhaps he will address the question at some point.

  • Obvious

    Well, too bad about not having more photos.
    But Rossi’s point is a good one: If you don’t take what the report says at face value, and make new assumptions not based on what is written in the report, then any hypothesis can be conjured.
    I would like to see an independent analysis that supports all the data provided, using the data provided.
    A lot of energy seems to have gone into making the reactor “not work”. Why not spend at least as much time making the details fit the provided information? Even the sceptics should be able to fiddle with the data enough to make a mathematically consistent version of the story. Then we can discuss the variants from the “does work” theories with “not work” theories more completely.

    • Ged

      Very true. Full data charts would be most helpful from the professors, as surely all such was logged. That would make this very simple, with no assumptions on anyone’s parts.

      • one probmem is that if you give me the complete listing of crrents, power, voltage, harmonics, phase, I can guess many things on how the controller works, what is the load characteristics, the reactor dynamics…

        and this may release trade secrets.

        • Freethinker

          True, and add to that the fact that it is often useless to feed those who are insatiable as they will constantly rise the bar and demand more.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I think that the test team would not have made an obvious mistake. It is only logical to assume that they are competent and made proper measurements. When I make measurements, I usually approach the problem from several angles to see if the results match. A simple clamp -on probe on a hand-held meter could have confirmed if the more complex meter results were in the ballpark. Dreaming up all sorts of conspiracy theories implies that the testers are in on the fraud. I do not see any reason why they should be.

            To understand why a good test team checks the results, I once had an expensive harmonic power analyzer from a reputable US manufacturer (big name in the measurement industry) that reported a reactionary power measurement when a triac dimmer was applied to a resistive load. A resistive load can only have real (non-reactive) power. Reactive power occurs when a component like a capacitor or inductor “absorbs” power during a portion of the cycle and “returns” it a a later time. The meter was wrong.

      • Freethinker

        Ohh, but Ged!

        There is nowhere stated that the two pce-830 instruments where connected when the reactor was active! No. Why would one want to have that check when one start up the most controversial contraption on Earth since fire.

        • Ged

          Haha, I love the way you think, my free thinking friend. You see right through their independent, nothing to gain, ruse ;)!

  • Obvious

    Well, too bad about not having more photos.
    But Rossi’s point is a good one: If you don’t take what the report says at face value, and make new assumptions not based on what is written in the report, then any hypothesis can be conjured.
    I would like to see an independent analysis that supports all the data provided, using the data provided.
    A lot of energy seems to have gone into making the reactor “not work”. Why not spend at least as much time making the details fit the provided information? Even the sceptics should be able to fiddle with the data enough to make a mathematically consistent version of the story. Then we can discuss the variants from the “does work” theories with “not work” theories more completely.

    • Ged

      Very true. Full data charts would be most helpful from the professors, as surely all such was logged. That would make this very simple, with no assumptions on anyone’s parts. But considering the p380s are on both sides of the controller, all this conjecture as been rather aloof from what was actually reported.

      • one probmem is that if you give me the complete listing of crrents, power, voltage, harmonics, phase, I can guess many things on how the controller works, what is the load characteristics, the reactor dynamics…

        and this may release trade secrets.

        • Thomas Clarke

          A full disclosure is not required. just data as in the report, enough more to resolve the anomaly in the published data.

        • Freethinker

          True, and add to that the fact that it is often useless to feed those who are insatiable as they will constantly rise the bar and demand more.

        • ivanc

          We already know that for the device to work it has to drop the resistance, so the volts and amps we requesting is just RMS will not have wave form or angle of phase. we just need that data to correlate and validate/negate the miracleous drop in resistance

      • Freethinker

        Ohh, but Ged!

        There is nowhere stated that the two pce-830 instruments where connected when the reactor was active! No. Why would one want to have that check when one start up the most controversial contraption on Earth since fire.

        In Edit: This was a joke, I’m sure you understand 😉

        • Ged

          Haha, I love the way you think, my free thinking friend. You see right through their independent, nothing to gain, ruse ;)!

      • ivanc

        NOOO! all the contrary, the data to be correct shows a dramatic disminution in the resistence, this is impossible, so we need the voltage and current data to correlate.

        • Ged

          So wait, you’re saying an highly dramatic “no” to me saying we need full data, as I’ve been saying here and all along, and then go on to say we need the full data? I am rightfully confused.

    • AlbertNN

      The critique, and hypothesis of the reversed current clamp, is based on the data that is in the report. The photo shows that one clamp is reversed, the calculations on the joule heating supports it, and the conclusion is that if it would be so, then the COP=1.

      The only versions of alternative explanations I have seen are involving additional hypothetical physics, such as alpha-particle influence on Nicrome wires, or exotic temperature dependence of materials not specified to have been used in the test.

      • Obvious

        I would like to assume that strange/unexplained forces are not required in the heating power calculations. At least for the first pass. I think there is a way to reconcile the values without extreme assumptions, or inverted clamps.

        For all we know, electrons are flying off the H atoms and are stacking into the resistance wires somehow. But if that were true, it would make electricity, solving a lot of problems.

        • AlbertNN

          But then you would need to have a return current, or you would end up with a heavily charged H-gas, that in the end would lead to a spark with equal charge to the current you have drawn from the gas.

          Electrons flying off H atoms going into the wires is a strange theory in my book.

          • Obvious

            I wasn’t suggesting that electrons flying into the wires somehow was a realistic interpretation. It was an off-the-cuff extreme scenario.

          • Obvious

            If instead the electrons flew off the resistor wires, into the reaction, do you think that they would they be counted if they were not accounted for on the other end of the conductor? Would they be part of the measureable current?
            Hypothetically…

    • AlbertNN

      It was hard to write an honest answer to this that survived moderation. The short version is that I have not been able to reconcile the data in the report with the facts stated in it.

      • Obvious

        I am working on a rough model, using a rotating disconnected phase idea for the active run, that so far:

        results in a constant calculated resistance for each of the reactor coils,

        results in a very large increase in the C2 Joule heating W for the active run,

        that matches a 2.4 times increase in Joule heating watts from the dummy run,

        uses no inverted clamps,

        uses no strangeness in the heater coils,

        but results in a calculated ~200 W more input than reported during the active run,

        But it is a work in progress, and needs some revisions.

        So some fine tuning may resolve the calculations to match the observations reported (or my idea may fall apart in a decent simulation).

      • Freethinker

        Then you are probably having a too big ambition in what you try to reconcile. Stick to the scope, look at the two key observables.

        • Obvious

          Reconciliation of the available data IS a big ambition.

          But, to paraphrase JFK:

          We choose to reconcile the data. We choose to reconcile the data in this month, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

        • AlbertNN

          My scope in this case is to understand how the data reported in the report can be made consistent with the description of the method used.

          • Freethinker

            If you set your own scope, you will be certain to fail as you will inevitably end up in the domain of no information. The scope I talk about is naturally the scope of the test.

  • Thomas Clarke

    My problem is that I do take what the report says at face value. And it is provably incorrect. Inconel cannot have the temperature characteristics required to make sense of the data in the report.

    So some assumption the testers made is wrong. I’m awaiting their comment.

    As far bending the data to make it work: that has been done already. You reckon the heater is not Inconel and has a very surprising temperature/resistance graph.

    I’d rather stick with the data, which points to a X1/3 under-reading of power in active test relative to dummy test such as could be got from a clamp reversal.

    The testers have all this data, and enough to diagnose clamp reversal, recorded. If it did not happen they can explain, using the recorded data, how else these results were obtained.

    • Freethinker

      “The testers have all this data, and enough to diagnose clamp reversal,
      recorded. If it did not happen they can explain, using the recorded
      data, how else these results were obtained.”

      Exactly. So they know the clamp was not reversed. It is a construct of pathological skeptics that it was inverted, as confabulation and conjecture. You repeatedly state that you await their comment. Maybe they will answer your prayers. Or maybe not. It is often useless to feed those who are insatiable as they will constantly rise the bar and demand more. A typical trait for those who has already made up their mind that this cannot work.

      It was a black box test. There was no inverted clamp, as that would have been easily discovered. The result show clearly a COP of 3. The ash show clear signs of nuclear reactions.

      That is what the evidence says.

      • DickeFix

        The problem is that you get COP=1 both during dummy run and active run if you instead use the measured values of the current. And COP=1 would be somewhat easier to explain theoretically than COP=3.

        I think everyone, would wish that the E-Cat works. It would be wonderful! If I was convinced from start that there was no hope, I wouldn´t have been so interested and waited impatiently on this test for over a year. I was so excited initially over the positive result but now I feel just disappointed with the entire test because of the strange isotope results and the inconsistent electrical results.

        • Freethinker

          Your disappointment is the fruit of your failing logic. You wish to explain more which is beyond the scope. You confabulate and conjecture from data you have not, while you reject the data that is there and the scope of the work.

          Of of course you will be disappointed.

  • Thomas Clarke

    I would be fascinated now for Prof Petersson to explain his involvement. He may of course have power electrical expertise, but it is not expected from a professor of analytical chemistry.

    • Freethinker

      Why is that? You claim to be an expert. He has worked with analytical chemistry for quite some time (an understatement), an occupation which is by it’s nature very much laborative.

      You may also consider the very strong possibility that he have had help by real experts to do it – even if you may have a hard time believing so.

      • Thomas Clarke

        When have I claimed to be an expert?

        I was going by Rossi’s statment that he was responsible. I agree, it is unwise to accept this.

  • AlbertNN

    Why would not Rossi be allowed to take photos? I do not understand that at all.

  • AlbertNN

    Why would not Rossi be allowed to take photos? I do not understand that at all.

  • LuFong

    Why is Rossi defending the “Independent Report?” It’s not Rossi’s report. How does Rossi even know who was responsible for the electrical connections and the process they used? How does Rossi know that the clamps were not manipulated? Are the testers talking to Rossi about this issue? Again why? I would expect the testers to respond to the questions in a reasonable time frame (it’s been almost a month now). So far it’s been pretty much all Rossi.

    I would also like to hear what restrictions the testers were under when doing the test. According to Rossi none but we know from the report there was limits on the ash sample side.

    • Daniel Maris

      Lu Fong, always wrong.

      No doubt this riposte from Rossi has upset you, but you will have to live with it.

    • Freethinker

      So many questions.

      That which has been proven, need not be assumed.

      Why is Rossi defending the “Independent Report?”

      Why not. After all, it is his invention, he was there, supervised, to start, stop, load fuel and unload ash. Likely he would have met some of the people involved when there.

      It would be better, though, if the test team published an addendum to the report, clarifying points that are reasonable withing the scope of the investigation.

      The clamp is of course a “possible” explanation, albeit very remote in it’s likelihood, due to the very easy detection of such an error.

  • Matt

    ” No evidence at all “. Well, the thing is, there is evidence, because of which the whole clamp discussion came up.

    • Freethinker

      And as there is no *evidence* of such a clamp being wrongly placed, he is likely correct in his statement.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Rossi was present during some parts of the testing. I agree, it is a bit weird Rossi defending the integrity of the “independent testing”.

    • Freethinker

      😀

      And of course it has exactly 0 impact on the credibility of the test, as he was SUPERVISED. Only in the mind of pathological skeptics would it automatically generate “misplaced” clamps, and other weird artifacts.

  • andrea.s

    It is not surprising nor a scandal that Rossi defends the results and the testers team.

    However, if I were Prof. Pettersson, I would feel offended by being exposed by Rossi as the one in charge before having personally replied to the critics.

    I hope Prof. Pettersson, whom I don’t know professionally, but I instinctively trust as perfectly honest, will now shed some light on the input power measurements.

    Andrea Rossi believes we critics “have an agenda”, well yes my personal agenda is to know the truth and either restore or cancel my interest in this story (time is precious). All I ask is to show the upstream and downstream PCE readings and waveforms in representative phases of the dummy run and of the experiment run.

    It is not credible that a chopped sinewave is a trade secret, when Rossi claims that the next hot-cat version will be gas-powered.

    • Gerrit

      I am sick and tired of all these critics “demanding” that Rossi fully discloses every little detail of his invention.

      You’ll never hear these critics demand that the science establishment should finally get their act together and read up on the multitude of peer reviewed papers reporting excess heat and transmutations that have been published over the last 25 years.

      If science would have seriously looked into this and properly used the scienctific method on this phenomenon we would already know if this works or not and we would not be talking about Rossi and a TIP report today.

      Rossi has sold his invention to Industrial Heat and they are working hard to bringing this device to market.

      If you really want to know if there is any valid science behind it, complain to the science establishment for having completely ignored this while they firmly believed this is all just crackpot.

      • psi2u2

        You are expecting the critics to be real skeptics. This is something they are unwilling or unable to do. I share your frustration.These kinds of demands are characteristic, in my experience, of those on the losing end of a paradigm shift when they are defending deeply entrenched interests. They aim to discredit by their demands. They don’t really want to know the answers, but they want to make the paradigm busters look bad. (This should not be taken as a general comment including ALL skeptics of Rossi — merely a general defining trait that is often visible).

      • Thomas Kaminski

        It was single phase because, though it was connected as a three-phase load, the third leg current was zero. That meant that it was really only connected electrically to two phases.

    • psi2u2

      If you think that all the “critics” share your claimed agenda, you are either naive or stupid. You may be an honest critic, but many are not. The agendas involved here are enormous, would you not admit?

    • Freethinker

      “It is not credible that a chopped sinewave is a trade secret, when Rossi
      claims that the next hot-cat version will be gas-powered.”

      Maybe you are reading in to much in this. Has it ever been stated that it will ONLY be gas powered?

      Likely the heating itself will be gas powered, but likely you need a control box to regulate the gas flow, and most likely pump a current to drive electrons, protons and other charged particles so inclined to be driven, in the core.

  • andrea.s

    It is not surprising nor a scandal that Rossi defends the results and the testers team.

    However, if I were Prof. Pettersson, I would feel offended by being exposed by Rossi as the one in charge before having personally replied to the critics.

    I hope Prof. Pettersson, whom I don’t know professionally, but I instinctively trust as perfectly honest, will now shed some light on the input power measurements.

    Andrea Rossi believes we critics “have an agenda”, well yes my personal agenda is to know the truth and either restore or cancel my interest in this story (time is precious). All I ask is to show the upstream and downstream PCE readings and waveforms in representative phases of the dummy run and of the experiment run.

    It is not credible that a chopped sinewave is a trade secret, when Rossi claims that the next hot-cat version will be gas-powered.

    • Gerrit

      I am sick and tired of all these critics “demanding” that Rossi fully discloses every little detail of his invention.

      You’ll never hear these critics demand that the science establishment should finally get their act together and read up on the multitude of peer reviewed papers reporting excess heat and transmutations that have been published over the last 25 years.

      If science would have seriously looked into this and properly used the scientific method on this phenomenon we would already know if this works or not and we would not be talking about Rossi and a TIP report today.

      Rossi has sold his invention to Industrial Heat and they are working hard to bringing this device to market.

      If you really want to know if there is any valid science behind it, complain to the science establishment for having completely ignored this while they firmly believed this is all just crackpot.

      • psi2u2

        You are expecting the critics to be real skeptics. This is something they are unwilling or unable to do. I share your frustration.These kinds of demands are characteristic, in my experience, of those on the losing end of a paradigm shift when they are defending deeply entrenched interests. They aim to discredit by their demands. They don’t really want to know the answers, but they want to make the paradigm busters look bad. (This should not be taken as a general comment including ALL skeptics of Rossi — merely a general defining trait that is often visible).

      • Thomas Clarke

        Firstly, there is no demand Rossi disclose anything. The comments are on an independent report written by third parties whom Rossi let test his device. He has (we must hope) no control over what they release.

        The purpose of this test was, I thought, because Rossi wanted to demonstrate to others that he had a working device.

        There are two reasons why the testers might wish to comment further.

        (1) because the reputation of the testers requires that they resolve an undoubted anomaly in their data. They have stated that they have data which can do this, so not to do so would be very strange.

        (2) because until this is done the report, as a piece of science, has very little value.

        • Gerrit

          According to Rossi the public demonstrations of the e-cat back in 2011 were done on request of Focardi who wanted to present the work he had been involved in, in what we know now where the last years of his life.

          Essen and Kullander witnessed those demonstrations and requested to investigate the ecat more thoroughly. Therefore the third party tests were initiated primarily by the third party, not by Rossi.

          I understand that you would like a written statement somewhere in the report that the clamps were definitely correctly oriented, but would that really take away your doubt ? Or would you then find something else to doubt. For instance if the scientists excluded the possibility of Rossi secretly installing infrared laser which heated up the e-cat. Or Rossi secretly patching the firmware of the cameras so they report higher values.
          Or Rossi patching the firmware of the PCE830 to report lower values.
          Does the report say anything about the firmware version of the equipment ? Oh No ! the report is worthless to you, because it doesn’t spend a full page on every minute bit of info you choose to get all worked up about.

      • bachcole

        I disagree. It was not the scientific method per se that failed. It was the failure of the “exploratory method” (I just invented that phrase.). They used the scientific method. They tried it; it failed. It was their lack of trust and their unwillingness to put in the effort to discover why their efforts failed and Fleishmann and Pons efforts succeeded. They didn’t do the exploratory method because they didn’t want LENR to succeed.

    • psi2u2

      If you think that all the “critics” share your claimed agenda, you are either naive or stupid. You may be an honest critic, but many are not. The agendas involved here are enormous, would you not admit?

      • andrea.s

        Well, I speak for myself, not for all critics. The purpose of this test was to publicly prove that the effect is real. Why then present it in such a way that it appears as a delusion to anybody with some technical expertise ?

        • Freethinker

          The apparent delusion comes from your desire to go beyond the box of the scope, where there is little or no information so you need to base your conclusion on your own conjectures and confabulations.

          There is no information that is of high confidence in terms of deciding that there was an inverted clamp. None. If the clamps are correctly applied, as they were for the dummy, and thus for the active reactor, and we feel confident enough about the thermal imaging power computations, then the claims stands.

          Would it be nice to get more information from the test team? More in depth in those things we speculate on? Sure. I would very much like to have more data. But it does not change the verdict that the claims are valid based on the information in the report.

          • Thomas Clarke

            This is a strange argument. You are saying that a third party test that appears to indicate likely COP=1 should be taken as showing a high COP because an erroneous report says that it does and we don’t have enough information to be sure.

            If so perhaps I should invent an LENR device and get it testes. My toaster would easily be proven to have high COP.

          • Omega Z

            Question:
            Do you think it really matters what anyone on the blogs think?

            Any Corporation who has interest is not going to surf the blogs. They will go straight to Industrial Heat. Our opinions hold no weight.
            They can access all the data. Raw or condensed. And following up with a private test with their own personnel on hand. It could already be or have taken place.

            A thought: The E-cat community has just provided a crowd sourced vetting of the 3rd party test. Thousands of eyeballs, Friend & Foe, from scientists to the armchair critic.

            In a 50+ page report, it is quite easy to make a mistake or transpose numbers. And quite hard to find them. It can become quite blurred. All have been a great help. They can now easily go to specific points & check for typo’s or skewed math or it’s symbols. Adding overlooked details & foot notes.

            They now have a very strong paper to present to any serious entities & provide the raw data if they find interest in it. Good Job to “Everyone who Contributed”.
            I would enjoy an update, But, Seriously, They don’t really owe us anything if they so choose not to.

          • bachcole

            I disagree. First and foremost, whether a corporation has any interest may very well depend upon or be encouraged by us. I myself had some rich guy looking for an investment in LENR ask me via email what he should be looking at. This was before the 2013 TPI test while I was still in my bitching about “Rossi says” phase, so I suggested that he look into Defkalion I think, or perhaps Brillioun, I don’t remember which.

            I believe that people listen to us here. Heck, I sort of listen to “us here”. I take people’s word for stuff a lot. When you-all decide what the reaction really is, please let me know. I won’t be going through the math any time soon. It is the same with everything else and those who do not have time to follow the details.

            Secondly, who doesn’t need encouragement?

            However, once a corporation has a lock on the reality of the E-Cat, then whatever we say here will be of little consequence to them.

        • Omega Z

          “The purpose of this test was to publicly prove that the effect is real.”

          Sorry Andreas. I have never heard that except from other posters on the blogs. In reality, It does not matter what any of us think. If we should decide it does not work & disappear tomorrow, It would have no effect on IH/Rossi’s plans at this point.

          A more accurate view would be- “The purpose of this test was to prove that the effect is real.” Nothing public to it.
          It would be data to be provided to interested business parties. They have all the data at their disposal. Not bits & pieces as we do.

          • bachcole

            I agree 99%. (That is not bad. Stop complaining.) I am sure that it is nice for them to have a peanut gallery cheering and passing the word. But essentially, I agree with you. It is entirely likely that there have been other tests and many visits by investors that we don’t even know about.

    • Freethinker

      “It is not credible that a chopped sinewave is a trade secret, when Rossi
      claims that the next hot-cat version will be gas-powered.”

      Maybe you are reading in to much in this. Has it ever been stated that it will ONLY be gas powered?

      Likely the heating itself will be gas powered, but likely you need a control box to regulate the gas flow, and most likely pump a current to drive electrons, protons and other charged particles so inclined to be driven, in the core.

    • ivanc

      It is a scandal if you write a public test doc on 3phase electricity and do not know the distribution of your currents is IL/sqr(3) and not IL/2.
      It is a scandal if your joule current show a cop of 1 and your power report a cop 3.6.
      Every one knows resistors do not change values by themselves.
      Your profesional good name is in risk, Please show the rest of the DATA.

      If you stay In silence then you saying the critics are correct!

  • Obvious

    I would like to assume that strange/unexplained forces are not required in the heating power calculations. At least for the first pass. I think there is a way to reconcile the values without extreme assumptions, or inverted clamps.

    For all we know, electrons are flying off the H atoms and are stacking into the resistance wires somehow. But if that were true, it would make electricity, solving a lot of problems.

  • Sanjeev

    It seems he is the same Prof Petterson who tested the regular Ecat 3 years ago.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6nlHlW8VRc

    He speaks positively for the Ecat and is a Prof of Chemistry. I guess a wrong choice for “independent” tester according to the skeptologic. This is more fuel for skeptics (of all kind).

    There is even more fuel for skeptics in Rossi’s statement here, because he defends the accuracy of the report when he was not allowed to be present there or even take a photo. (That’s strange, as noted by a commentator below). Rossi should have simply forwarded the objection to the third party instead of fielding it for them. Of course, he always said the results can be positive or negative, so why worry?

    He tried to defend the I1/2 issue also. So why is he doing this? And why is the third party so silent? The raw data or some clarification could have settled the matter permanently. Actually all this secrecy and silence by the testers and IH are not helping to establish a good reputation for lenr. Perhaps they intend to do so for some reasons, but I find it frustrating.

  • Sanjeev

    It seems he is the same Prof Petterson who tested the regular Ecat 3 years ago.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6nlHlW8VRc

    He speaks positively for the Ecat and is a Prof of Chemistry. I guess a wrong choice for “independent” tester according to the skeptologic. This is more fuel for skeptics (of all kind).

    There is even more fuel for skeptics in Rossi’s statement here, because he defends the accuracy of the report when he was not allowed to be present there or even take a photo. (That’s strange, as noted by a commentator below). Rossi should have simply forwarded the objection to the third party instead of fielding it for them. Of course, he always said the results can be positive or negative, so why worry?

    He tried to defend the I1/2 issue also. So why is he doing this? And why is the third party so silent? The raw data or some clarification could have settled the matter permanently. Actually all this secrecy and silence by the testers and IH are not helping to establish a good reputation for lenr. Perhaps they intend to do so for some reasons, but I find it frustrating.

  • Freethinker

    😀

    And of course it has exactly 0 impact on the credibility of the test, as he was SUPERVISED. Only in the mind of pathological skeptics would it automatically generate “misplaced” clamps, and other weird artifacts.

  • Freethinker

    And as there is no *evidence* of such a clamp being wrongly placed, he is likely correct in his statement.

  • Obvious

    I wasn’t suggesting that electrons flying into the wires somehow was a realistic interpretation. It was an off-the-cuff extreme scenario.

    • Obvious

      If instead the electrons flew off the resistor wires, into the reaction, do you think that they would they be counted if they were not accounted for on the other end of the conductor? Would they be part of the measureable current?

  • Freethinker

    Why is that? You claim to be an expert. He has worked with analytical chemistry for quite some time (an understatement), an occupation which is by it’s nature very much laborative.

    You may also consider the very strong possibility that he have had help by real experts to do it – even if you may have a hard time believing so.

  • Freethinker

    “The testers have all this data, and enough to diagnose clamp reversal,
    recorded. If it did not happen they can explain, using the recorded
    data, how else these results were obtained.”

    Exactly. So they know the clamp was not reversed. It is a construct of pathological skeptics that it was inverted, as confabulation and conjecture. You repeatedly state that you await there comment. Maybe they will answer your prayers. Or maybe not. It is often useless to feed those who are insatiable as they will constantly rise the bar and demand more. A typical trait for those who has already made up their mind that this cannot work.

    It was a black box test. There was no inverted clamp, as that would have been easily discovered. The result show clearly a COP of 3. The ash show clear signs of nuclear reactions.

    That is what the evidence says.

  • Freethinker

    The you are probably having a too big ambition in what you try to reconcile. Stick to the scope, look at the two key observables.

    • Obvious

      Reconciliation of the available data IS a big ambition.

      But, to paraphrase JFK:

      We choose to reconcile the data. We choose to reconcile the data in this month, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

    • Freethinker

      The apparent delusion comes from your desire to go beyond the box of the scope, where there is little or no information so you need to base your conclusion on your own conjectures and confabulations.

      There is no information that is of high confidence in terms of deciding that there was an inverted clamp. None. If the clamps are correctly applied, as they were for the dummy, and thus for the active reactor, and we feel confident enough about the thermal imaging power computations, then the claims stands.

      Would it be nice to get more information from the test team? More in depth in those things we speculate on? Sure. I would very much like to have more data. But it does not change the verdict that the claims are valid based on the information in the report.

  • Obvious

    I have a quick question about the Word document Giancarlo De Marchis clamp test with photos. When the I3 clamp was reversed, the magnitude of the amps measured were shown to be approximately the same as when the clamp was facing the right way, and there was no sign (+/-).
    Does this mean that this is not RMS amps displayed? For some reason I expected the reverse RMS current to read higher (~5.8*1.73 = ~10 A), due to conducting the return path of two phases.
    My three phase power understanding is pretty rough, but improving. A clear response, rather than “that’s wrong”, would be helpful.

    • the facst that I3 (rms probably) is twice I1 and I2 is really not classic 3pahse balanced.

      normally in 3phase balanced, even if classically switched

      I1rms=I2rms=I3rms

      however the 3 currents are (if balanced) rotated by 120degrees from each others.

      IF I1rms+I2rms=I3rms THEN i1(t), i2(t), i3(t) are more or less synchronous.

      probably i3(t)=-(i1(t)+i2(t))

      if the load is simple, probably this imply that

      u1(t)=u2(t)

      and the wiring can be delta, Y or V, no matter since no current circulate from wire 1 to wire 2

      I’m puzzled, and I hesitate between two hypothesis

      1- the formulat I3rms=I1rms+I2rms is not valid (maybe is is Ipeak, or Iavg, or…)

      2- u1(t)=u2(t), ie it is de facto a monophase load with a useless branch R1,2.

      note that in that case if the I3 clamp was reverted, then power would be ZERO

      is I1 or I2 clam was reverted then displayed power would be HALF

      and there would be evidence of some huge neutral current while there is no neutral wire

      the 1/3 power is just because the skeptics ignore that I vs I/2 claim. It is not absurd as this claim is weird, but it should be documented.

  • Obvious

    I have a quick question about the Word document, Giancarlo De Marchis clamp test with photos. When the I3 clamp was reversed, the magnitude of the amps measured were shown to be approximately the same as when the clamp was facing the right way, and there was no sign (+/-).
    Does this mean that this is not RMS amps displayed? For some reason I expected the reverse RMS current to read higher (~5.8*1.73 = ~10 A), due to conducting the return path of two phases.
    My three phase power understanding is pretty rough, but improving. A clear response, rather than “that’s wrong”, would be helpful.

    • AlbertNN

      An RMS-value is a magnitude. That is, it is always positive, it can not be negative. The clamp is measuring the sum of the currents in the wire, not the current flowing in a certain direction. The phase of the measured current will flip 180 degrees when we reverse the clamp. This is also what is shown to have happened on the photo of the analyser screen in the report.

      • Obvious

        Thanks also.

    • andrea.s

      It is simpler than you think: “rms” means the “square root of the mean of squares”.
      If the instrument reads a negative current because of an inverted clamp, its square is positive and the same as the square of the (correct) positive current. Thus rms current doesn’t change.
      However the instrument measures power as the product of voltage and current.
      If the AC mains supplies a current I at an instant when the voltage V is high, P=I*V is a positive quantity.
      If a clamp is reversed, the instrument interprets this as a current -I surged by the mains, thus a negative power P=-I*V.
      In a 3-phase measurement, total power is simply the algebraic sum of the three powers P1+P2+P3.
      In a balanced system as the one described (and as required to users of 3-phase mains), the average of the three powers should be the same so Ptot=P1+P2+P3=3*P.
      If a clamp is reversed, Ptot appears as P+P-P=P.

      • Obvious

        Thanks. That was clear, and helpful.

      • Obvious

        I understand the breadth of your waveform analysis better now.

    • the facst that I3 (rms probably) is twice I1 and I2 is really not classic 3pahse balanced.

      normally in 3phase balanced, even if classically switched

      I1rms=I2rms=I3rms

      however the 3 currents are (if balanced) rotated by 120degrees from each others.

      IF I1rms+I2rms=I3rms THEN i1(t), i2(t), i3(t) are more or less synchronous.

      probably i3(t)=-(i1(t)+i2(t))

      if the load is simple, probably this imply that

      u1(t)=u2(t)

      and the wiring can be delta, Y or V, no matter since no current circulate from wire 1 to wire 2

      I’m puzzled, and I hesitate between two hypothesis

      1- the formulat I3rms=I1rms+I2rms is not valid (maybe is is Ipeak, or Iavg, or…)

      2- u1(t)=u2(t), ie it is de facto a monophase load with a useless branch R1,2.

      note that in that case if the I3 clamp was reverted, then power would be ZERO

      is I1 or I2 clam was reverted then displayed power would be HALF

      and there would be evidence of some huge neutral current while there is no neutral wire

      the 1/3 power is just because the skeptics ignore that I vs I/2 claim. It is not absurd as this claim is weird, but it should be documented.

  • DickeFix

    I have followed the E-cat story from the beginning and waited for this test for over 1 year. I am so very disappointed how the test was carried out.

    1. Why did they let Rossi be involved at all? It can not be rocket science to load the fuel into the E-Cat and take it out.

    2. Why didn’t they do the calibration at the same input power as during active run. How could it be dangerous to have the SAME electrical input power? I really don´t understand their explanation:
    “If these conditions are not met, microscopic melt spots are liable to occur in the cables. So,
    there was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generators”

    3. Why didn´t they have a professional electrical engineer to help with the power measurements? A retired professor in nuclear physics or physical chemistry is normally not a good electrical experimentalist. The experiments at a university are normally done by PhD students.

    4. Why do they include a picture of the PCE display in the report showing overload? And how can they even get overload?

    I hope that the research team soon responds to the questions about the discrepancies in the electrical measurements. I get the feeling from Rossis comment that it is not the first time he answers a question about the clamps. Maybe Prof. Roland Petterson has contacted Rossi and asked him if the clamp could have been reversed during the fuel loading and Rossi became irritated and said it was not his responsibility, but the research team’s to every day control the correctness of the connections.

    If the research team has the raw data from the PCE-830 it should be a simple thing to deduce the reason for the discrepancy and if it is the measured current or the measured input power that is wrong.

    • Obvious

      The problem with the dummy run was they did not know in advance hot it would get in the active run, nor how much power they could successfully put into it. Apparently they came very close to wrecking the reactor in the active run anyways, if the reactor dies at 1455°C when nickel melts.
      Once the reactor had been fueled, run, and emptied, running another dummy run at a higher temperature may have added unknown complexities (like Ni stuck inside, etc.)
      A series of dummy runs with increasing power levels before the active run would have made things much more clear.
      Probably part of their thinking was not to wreck the reactor. Period. Even if a replacement was available, everyone would freak out that the device had been changed, so all the measurements must be done completely all over, from the beginning, causing much delay.

      • DickeFix

        According to the report they had been informed in advance that it was OK to run the reactor with more than 800W. If they were so afraid of wrecking the reactor, how did they dare to use 800-900W in the active reactor which they expected to get much hotter than the dummy?

        “…the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat fluctuating at around 810 W. Although we had been informed that the E-Cat was capable of operating at higher power values, we had previously decided to keep to the lower value, and for almost 10 days no adjustments to the apparatus were made. 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.”

        • Obvious

          I don’t think that indicates they knew they could run it higher, prior to the active run. If the word “previously” were moved ahead of “informed” in the first sentence, I would be more likely to agree. Maybe even strongly agree.

          We could dissect the English usage and split hairs about the statement. And get nowhere.
          So lets move on from that.

        • ivanc

          But it correlates with the unlikeness of the resistence dropping ist value, because the current should be going up not down, is going down because the resistence is increasing with heath and time because is rusting and that is causing an increase in the ohms

        • ivanc

          Thanks for this, this proves the controller is not controlling power, maybe temperature, but not power. I thougth it will just control voltage, but if it has a termocuple feedback it must be controlling temperature, so as the ecat get hotter and hotter it gives less and less current….
          I still need to see the volt and amps data on this test. there is no other solution.

  • Obvious

    Thanks. That was clear, and helpful.

  • Obvious

    Thanks also.

  • Mark Szl

    So professor Peterson would have had to reverse the clap in both tests. The one over a year ago and this one. But if the reverse clamp issue was brought up after the first test then he would have not wanted to make that mistake again. Unless, he is doing it on purpose but if so then to what end?

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Last year’s test was in reality, a single phase connection. A reversed clamp would have shown zero power in, leading to an INFINITE COP. Unlikely that would have snuck through. The test configurations were different. Those who say the same “reversed clamp” could explain the last test’s COP are smoking something.

      • Mark Szl

        Could you elaborate on what they are smoking. Actually, why you think their arguments are BS?

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Reversing the clamp in the previous test could explain the COP — NOT. Reversing the clamp should have produced zero input power. It was really a single phase supply. What goes in one lead comes out the other. The phase voltage was the same for both (magnitude). If a clamp was reversed, one lead would produce negative power (resistor converting the power to heat) and the other would produce positive power (a generator???). The positive power would cancel the negative power producing zero power.

          • Mark Szl

            So all this fuss is misplaced … or it is FUD type deception/propaganda … or trying to shake the tree and see what falls out. In this case maybe finding out the waveform???. What do u think?

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I think that the test team would not have made an obvious mistake. It is only logical to assume that they are competent and made proper measurements. When I make measurements, I usually approach the problem from several angles to see if the results match. A simple clamp -on probe on a hand-held meter could have confirmed if the more complex meter results were in the ballpark. Dreaming up all sorts of conspiracy theories implies that the testers are in on the fraud. I do not see any reason why they should be.

            To understand why a good test team checks the results, I once had an expensive harmonic power analyzer from a reputable US manufacturer (big name in the measurement industry) that reported a reactionary power measurement when a triac dimmer was applied to a resistive load. A resistive load can only have real (non-reactive) power. Reactive power occurs when a component like a capacitor or inductor “absorbs” power during a portion of the cycle and “returns” it a a later time. The meter was wrong.

      • Thomas Clarke

        Can you say why you think it was single phase?

        From the second report:

        A second cylinder made of a different ceramic material (corundum) was located within the shell, and housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils. Resistors were laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the cylinder axis, and were as long as the cylinder itself.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          It was single phase because, though it was connected as a three-phase load, the third leg current was zero. That meant that it was really only connected electrically to two phases.

    • ivanc

      maybe this is the way He has learnt to connect the meter…. Maybe this is why Rossi always used 3phase. there is a hidden cat some where!

    • Thomas Clarke

      sorry, above comment should have been in reply to this message – site won’t let me move it!

  • Obvious

    The problem with the dummy run was they did not know in advance hot it would get in the active run, nor how much power they could successfully put into it. Apparently they came very close to melting the reactor in the active run anyways, if the reactor dies at 1455°C when nickel melts.
    Once the reactor had been fueled, run, and emptied, running another dummy run at a higher temperature may have added unknown complexities (like Ni stuck inside, etc.)
    A series of dummy runs with increasing power levels before the active run would have made things much more clear.
    Probably part of their thinking was not to wreck the reactor. Period. Even if a replacement was available, everyone would freak out that the device had been changed, so all the measurements must be done completely all over, from the beginning, causing much delay.

  • Freethinker

    Your disappointment is the fruit of your failing logic. You wish to explain more which is beyond the scope. You confabulate and conjecture from data you have not, while you reject the data that is there and the scope of the work.

    Of of course you will be disappointed.

  • Freethinker

    If you set your own scope, you will be certain to fail as you will inevitably end up in the domain of no information. The scope I talk about is naturally the scope of the test.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Last year’s test was in reality, a single phase connection. A reversed clamp would have shown zero power in, leading to an INFINITE COP. Unlikely that would have snuck through. The test configuration were different. Those who say the same “reversed clamp” could explain the last test’s COP are smoking something.

    • Ged

      So wait, you’re saying an highly dramatic “no” to me saying we need full data, as I’ve been saying here and all along, and then go on to say we need the full data? I am rightfully confused.

  • Obvious

    I don’t think that indicates they knew they could run it higher, prior to the active run. If the word “previously” were moved ahead of “informed” in the first sentence, I would be more likely to agree. Maybe even strongly agree.

    We could dissect the English usage and split hairs about the statement. And get nowhere.
    So lets move on from that.

  • GreenWin

    This has become a specious discussion. There is no issue here and with today’s article from Elforsk – they seem perfectly content with the Lugano authors work. THAT’s what matters. COMMERCIAL applications. In spite of Mary Yugo’s desperate pleas to the Elforsk CEO, he goes ahead and endorses LENR. And with recent publication of the Norwegian paper on “Casimir forces in a Plasma…” We are looking at a whole new way to define particle physics. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032.pdf

  • GreenWin

    This has become a specious discussion. There is no issue here and with today’s article from Elforsk – they seem perfectly content with the Lugano authors work. THAT’s what matters. COMMERCIAL applications. In spite of Mary Yugo’s desperate pleas to the Elforsk CEO, he goes ahead and endorses LENR. And with recent publication of the Norwegian paper on “Casimir forces in a Plasma…” We are looking at a whole new way to define particle physics. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032.pdf

    • Thomas Clarke

      That is clearly not true. The test a year ago, for example, could have been easily spoofed with a loopback connection using contra-running currents. Or, since we do not have the smoking gun evidence that we do from this test, you could argue that it could have been a fair test.

      Those who view not proof in a demo as evidence that the e-cat works would take that view.

      Rossi’s tests are all different, and have all had different possible failure modes.

      What is true is that the previous test could have been in error by a factor of three for the same reason as this test, and that reason could be a reversed clamp.

      • GreenWin

        Tom, now you just sound like a conspiracy whacko. Because the body of LENR evidence outside E-Cat is enormous and mounting daily. And you need not be a forensic analyst to know the major multinationals partnered with Elforsk.

      • bachcole

        “The test a year ago, for example, could have been easily spoofed with a loopback connection using contra-running currents.” I think that you are so in love with your own intellect that you are capable of thinking that the professors are capable of being so stupid.

  • ivanc

    The issue is not the clamp, that is just a possible explanation of the real issue. The data is not coherent, the resistances do not change by itself. The current in the feeding cables and joule heating perfectly correlate with the outpower!, giving a cop close to 1 that is the issue.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Specious for Rossi, if he can continue, I agree.

    Not specious for anyone interested in whether or not his device works.

    The arguments here seem to be along the lines of:

    “It does not matter if the test indicates likely COP=1. No-one can prove COP=1, so the test conclusions, stand.”

    That is just strange, for a third party test meant to settle once and for all doubts about whether Rossi has anything.

    The data in the test does not make sense. It can only indicate COP > 1 if the current measurements – surely the easiest and least confusing ones to extract from the PCE-830, are wrong. But then why should the power measurements, derived from the current, be right?

    If the test indications of COP=1 are correct then it is evidence that Rossi has been working on electric heaters.

  • Obvious

    I understand the breadth of your waveform analysis better now.

  • Mark E Kitiman
  • Gerrit

    According to Rossi the public demonstrations of the e-cat back in 2011 were done on request of Focardi who wanted to present the work he had been involved in, in what we know now where the last years of his life.

    Essen and Kullander witnessed those demonstrations and requested to investigate the ecat more thoroughly. Therefore the third party tests were initiated primarily by the third party, not by Rossi.

    I understand that you would like a written statement somewhere in the report that the clamps were definitely correctly oriented, but would that really take away your doubt ? Or would you then find something else to doubt. For instance if the scientists excluded the possibility of Rossi secretly installing infrared laser which heated up the e-cat. Or Rossi secretly patching the firmware of the cameras so they report higher values.
    Or Rossi patching the firmware of the PCE830 to report lower values.
    Does the report say anything about the firmware version of the equipment ? Oh No ! the report is worthless to you, because if doesn’t spend a full page on every minute bit of info you choose to get all worked up about.

  • Mark E Kitiman
  • ivanc

    I need someone please to review this calculations.

    Joule heat in Dummy reactor:

    Jh=3 iL^2 Rcu1+ 6 (iL/2)^2 Rcu2

    (using i/2 because this is how the testers did the calculation of joule heating, and I am using their calculated joule data.)

    …calculating the current and resistor of ecat)

    then: iL=sqrt(Jh*4/(12Rcu1+6Rcu2))

    Rcu1=0.004375

    Rcu2=0.002811

    iL=sqrt(jh*57.66513854) this i in function of joule heat value.

    now the resistor value in ecat.

    input power 479=3R (IL/sqrt(3))^2 using sqrt(3) because is the correct way.
    IL=19.7 amps
    R=479/( IL^2)=1.234249787 ohms.

    Assuming the ecat resistor is constant. (as it should be):

    The input power calculated for table 7 page 22:

    —————————–ILine—————-Iresistor
    No—-Joule— joule factor—-ecat Resistor————Input
    —————–57.6651385—-1.2342498—————-Power
    1.00—-37.77————46.67—————-26.94—– 2688.21
    2.00—-36.98————46.18—————-26.66—– 2631.98
    3.00—-36.49————45.87—————-26.48—– 2597.11
    4.00—-36.41————45.82—————-26.45—– 2591.42
    5.00—-36.13————45.64—————-26.35—– 2571.49
    6.00—-42.43————49.46—————-28.56—– 3019.88
    7.00—-42.18————49.32—————-28.47—– 3002.08
    8.00—-41.89————49.15—————-28.38—– 2981.44
    9.00—-41.75————49.07—————-28.33—– 2971.48
    10.00–41.93————49.17—————-28.39—– 2984.29
    11.00–41.52————48.93—————-28.25—– 2955.11
    12.00–41.60————48.98—————-28.28—– 2960.80
    13.00–41.62————48.99—————-28.28—– 2962.23
    14.00–41.55————48.95—————-28.26—– 2957.25
    15.00–41.46————48.90—————-28.23—– 2950.84
    16.00–41.25————48.77—————-28.16—– 2935.89
    dummy—–7————-20.09—————-11.60—– 498.21
    dymmy real 6,73———-19.7—————–11.37—– 479
    Please note the dummy joule is rounded in the report.
    is not precise, reports 7 is an aprox number it should be 6.73

    Calculating input power for a constant resistor give us
    a cop is much less than 1, also the voltage could be easily calculated out of this data.
    Using the reported cop and the total power or net power, the apparent resistor and voltage that will give that cop could be calculated also a graphic of how the resistor is changing in theory is possible.
    But again, in normal condition a resistor is a pasive component and its resistance should not change.
    what worries me of this data, is how the resistor could have changed to just give a cop less than 1 in all cases and also give the Rossi COP. its clearly said in the report that the “FUEL” will be loaded, this is why the analysed the transmutation the the powder, they did not worry about the resistor, until some people did this calculation before me.

    Now someone has to explain how the resistor value will drop.
    This is not only LENR, now is a transmutation of elements in the resistor.

    But you need to remember that any explanation could fit a science fiction case.

    • Obvious

      The resistance calculated for the reactor, calculated above, is that for the individual resistors, or for the effective combined resistance?

      • ivanc

        They are calculated using:479=3R (IL/sqrt(3))^2
        So is individual resistors.
        Note how the 3 cancels out with the sqrt(3)^2 in the denominator.
        so the expresion turns:
        R=479/( IL^2)

        • Obvious

          I ran the numbers a slightly different way, but got the same result, manually.
          But then I utterly confused myself with a delta current calculator online when I ended up with another solution (0.716 Ohm). (I was using 481 W for some reason). Both 1.24 Ohm and 0.716 Ohm seemed to satisfy the requirement of 19.7 A Line current and 481 W (a byproduct 14.1 V Line voltage was calculated in the procedure, which also remained constant for both answers). Note that 1.24 is 1.73 x 0.716. I was wondering where the square root of three got cancelled in one calculation, and not the other. There may be backdoor calculation using P = UI that somehow gives the square root of three the slip (for the calculator anyways).

          I note that all the calculations give a rather low voltage, which is likely an artifact of a low conduction angle. This makes me seriously wonder about any resistance values achieved, since a low conduction angle could in effect cause the delta to operate with two phases only, as if it were a Wye with an open phase, but operating at an effective 2/3R (instead of only two resistors in series, the third would be in parallel with the other two). This would screw up almost all the calculations.

          In the case that only two phases are active (one phase effectively disconnected), the calculator gives a value of 0.62 Ohms (cheating with the open Wye version), which would result in a single reactor resistor value of 0.93 Ohms. (unless I messed something doing that adjustment).

          https://www.watlow.com/reference/tools/3phase.cfm

        • Obvious

          Just to clarify further, the Iresistor column is the current in each resistor, at the same time the ILine current is the one in the column immediately to the left?.

          Just because I was fooling around with your calculated values and using P=(I^2)R, in row one:

          P = (I^2)R

          P = (26.94^2)1.2342498

          P = (725.7636)1.2342498

          P = 894.502 W

          This should be the power developed in a single resistor. Ignoring the Joule heating then (almost insignificant in terms of the total power), the remaining 19.73 A (46.67 – 26.94) in the line must then flow through one or both of the other two resistors in some fashion.

          The maximum power output would be obtained by flowing this remaining current through both resistors in series, if possible. So then using P=I^R (P=((19.73^2)2(1.2342498), we get a maximum power production of 960.92 W for the remaining current of 19.7 A (46.67 – 26.94).

          Summing the powers of the two results, we get only 1855.421 W, which is much lower than 2688.21 W in the final column, and still higher than actually possible, unless the circuit can put the calculated currents simultaneously through one single resistor as well as two resistors in series at the same time, but somehow not split the loads equally (feasible in three phase power?).

          So where did I get lost in that math?

  • Obvious

    The resistance calculated for the reactor calculated above, is that for the individual resistors, or the effective combined resistance?

    • ivanc

      They are calculated using:479=3R (IL/sqrt(3))^2
      So is individual resistors.
      Note how the 3 cancels out with the sqrt(3)^2 in the denominator.
      so the expresion turns:
      R=479/( IL^2)

      • Obvious

        I ran the numbers a slightly different way, but got the same result, manually.
        But then I utterly confused myself with a delta current calculator online when I ended up with another solution (0.716 Ohm). (I was using 481 W for some reason). Both 1.24 Ohm and 0.716 Ohm seemed to satisfy the requirement of 19.7 A and 481 W (a byproduct 14.1 V Line voltage was calculated in the procedure, which also remained constant for both answers). Note that 1.24 is 1.73 x 0.716. I was wondering where the square root of three got cancelled in one calculation, and not the other. There may be backdoor calculation using P = UI that somehow gives the square root of three the slip (for the calculator anyways).

        I note that all the calculations give a rather low voltage, which is likely an artifact of a low conduction angle. This makes me seriously wonder about any resistance values achieved, since a low conduction angle could in effect cause the delta to operate with two phases only, as if it were a Wye with an open phase, but operating at an effective 2/3R (instead of only two resistors in series, the third would be in parallel with the other two. This would screw up almost all the calculations.

        In the case that only two phases are active (one phase effectively disconnected), the calculator gives a value of 0.62 Ohms, which would result in a single reactor resistor value of 0.93 Ohms. (unless I messed something doing that adjustment).

      • Obvious

        Just to clarify further, the Iresistor column is the current in each resistor, at the same time the ILine current is the one in the column immediately to the left?.

        Just because I was fooling around with your calculated values and using P=(I^2)R, in row one:

        P = (I^2)R

        P = (26.94^2)1.2342498

        P = (725.7636)1.2342498

        P = 894.502 W

        This should be the power developed in a single resistor. Ignoring the Joule heating then (almost insignificant in terms of the total power), the remaining 19.73 A (46.67 – 26.94) in the line must then flow through one or both of the other two resistors in some fashion.
        The maximum power output would be obtained by flowing this remaining current through both resistors in series, if possible. So then using P=I^R (P=((19.73^2)2(1.2342498), we get a maximum power production of 960.92 W for the remaining current of 19.7 A (46.67 – 26.94).
        Summing the powers of the two results, we get only 1855.421 W, which is much lower than 2688.21 W in the final column, and still higher than actually possible, unless the circuit can put the calculated currents simultaneously through one single resistor as well as two resistors in series at the same time, but somehow not split the loads equally (feasible in three phase power?).
        So where did I get lost in that math?

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Reversing the clamp in the previous test could explain the COP — NOT. Reversing the clamp should have produced zero input power. It was really a single phase supply. What goes in one lead comes out the other. The phase voltage was the same for both (magnitude). If a clamp was reversed, one lead would produce negative power (resistor converting the power to heat) and the other would produce positive power (a generator???). The positive power would cancel the negative power producing zero power.

  • Omega Z

    “The purpose of this test was to publicly prove that the effect is real.”

    Sorry Andreas. I have never heard that except from other posters on the blogs. In reality, It does not matter what any of us think. If we should decide it does not work & disappear tomorrow, It would have no effect on IH/Rossi’s plans at this point.

    A more accurate view would be- “The purpose of this test was to prove that the effect is real.” Nothing public to it.
    It would be data to be provided to interested business parties. They have all the data at their disposal. Not bits & pieces as we do.

  • Omega Z

    Question:
    Do you think it really matters what anyone on the blogs think?

    Any Corporation who has interest is not going to surf the blogs. They will go straight to Industrial Heat. Our opinions hold no weight.
    They can access all the data. Raw or condensed. And following up with a private test with their own personnel on hand. It could already be or have taken place.

    A thought: The E-cat community has just provided a crowd sourced vetting of the 3rd party test. Thousands of eyeballs, Friend & Foe, from scientists to the armchair critic.

    In a 50+ page report, it is quite easy to make a mistake or transpose numbers. And quite hard to find them. It can become quite blurred. All have been a great help. They can now easily go to specific points & check for typo’s or skewed math or it’s symbols. Adding overlooked details & foot notes.

    They now have a very strong paper to present to any serious entities & provide the raw data if they find interest in it. Good Job to “Everyone who Contributed”.
    I would enjoy an update, But, Seriously, They don’t really owe us anything if they so choose not to.

  • GreenWin

    Tom, now you just sound like a conspiracy whacko. Because the body of LENR evidence outside E-Cat is enormous and mounting daily. And you need not be a forensic analyst to know the major multinationals partnered with Elforsk.