Rossi on Manufacturing E-Cat Reactors, Fuel

Today I put some questions to Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics regarding the making of the reactor and preparation of the powder used in the Lugano test:

Frank Acland
November 10th, 2014 at 6:01 PM
Dear Andrea,

Can you tell us:

1. Who made the reactor that was used in the Lugano report?
2. Who prepared the powder that was used in the reactor?
3. What your role was (if any) in preparing the above items?

Many thanks,

Rossi’s response:

1- The reactor that has been used in the Lugano test has been manufactured in the factory of Industrial Heat, in Raleigh, North Carolina.
2- The charge has been prepared by Industrial Heat, as all the charges are now, obviously upon the instructions I delivered with the know how.
3- I had no role in the preparation of the reactor and of the charges, because I trust my magnificent Team. After months of rehearsing, the Team of IH is able to manufacture everything without my help. For example, the 1 MW for the Customer of IH has been completely manufactured without my intervention. The reactor used in Lugano is just one out of many of them manufactured on the factory of IH by their workers, directed by their engineers. I spent most of my time making experiments in my laboratory. We have well clear and specified tasks: they have to earn money, I have to spend it ( he,he,he…). The charges are made by the top level persons that have access to them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

From the last sentence it sounds like there are only a few people in the organization with the knowledge about the composition of the charge, and access to this special powder that is so crucial to the E-Cat’s operation.

It now sounds like there is an established group of engineers in charge of the manufacturing activities, and Rossi is uninvolved with that side of things now, except, I would guess, when it comes to developing new technology and processes.

Again, it sounds like there is no lack of funds to hamper operations at IH. There must still be plenty of investment money at Rossi’s disposal, since mass marketing has yet to begin.

  • LilyLover

    I guess, after so many years of struggle, finally Rossi got to go the cost center side of the business from the earn revenue to prove yourself again and again! Isn’t this sweet?!

  • LilyLover

    I guess, after so many years of struggle, finally Rossi got to go the cost center side of the business from the earn revenue to prove yourself again and again! Isn’t this sweet?!

  • Sean

    Just gotta love it. Rossi is having fun developing and inventing new stuff while the wheels of industry are close to mass production. Just a matter of time and a new era will be launched.

    • jousterusa

      I bet life was somewhat like that for Thomas Edison when his major inventions were complete!

      • georgehants

        When an associate asked Thomas Alva Edison about the secret to his
        talent for invention, the plainspoken Edison retorted, “Genius is hard
        work, stick-to-itiveness, and common sense.”
        ——-
        “What Edison never seemed to grasp was that his “common sense” was exceedingly uncommon–freakish, really.”
        http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/12/the-undiscovered-world-of-thomas-edison/305880/

      • Sean

        Nikola Tesla also… Hope for the future would be LENR direct to electricity with no moving parts.

  • Sean

    Just gotta love it. Rossi is having fun developing and inventing new stuff while the wheels of industry are close to mass production. Just a matter of time and a new era will be launched.

    • jousterusa

      I bet life was somewhat like that for Thomas Edison when his major inventions were complete!

      • georgehants

        When an associate asked Thomas Alva Edison about the secret to his
        talent for invention, the plainspoken Edison retorted, “Genius is hard
        work, stick-to-itiveness, and common sense.”
        ——-
        “What Edison never seemed to grasp was that his “common sense” was exceedingly uncommon–freakish, really.”
        http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/12/the-undiscovered-world-of-thomas-edison/305880/

      • Sean

        Nikola Tesla also… Hope for the future would be LENR direct to electricity with no moving parts.

  • Miles

    Bring a final product to market & i’ll buy a domestic unit. I bet I’ll be waiting beyond 2015.

    • psi2u2

      You will be waiting a lot longer than that for domestic units, I fear. But it does seem probable that the industrial cats will be mass-produced in some fashion within the next year.

  • Miles

    Bring a final product to market & i’ll buy a domestic unit. I bet I’ll be waiting beyond 2015.

    • psi2u2

      You will be waiting a lot longer than that for domestic units, I fear. But it does seem probable that the industrial cats will be mass-produced in some fashion within the next year.

  • psi2u2

    Frank, great little article. Thanks.

  • psi2u2

    Frank, great little article. Thanks.

  • Daniel Maris

    Classic Rossi!

  • bachcole

    This might explain why the ash was different this time.

    • psi2u2

      lol.

  • bachcole

    This might explain why the ash was different this time.

    • psi2u2

      lol.

      • bachcole

        I am delighted that I am entertaining you, but I was serious.

        CLIFF: Rossi said 5.34% lithium. It says that right here.
        FRED: 5% is close enough.

        Remember how touchy the entire process is, that some people couldn’t replicate F&P because the palladium came from a different mine.

        • psi2u2

          Hi Bachole, I’m trying to remember why i posted that lol….:)…I may have misplaced the comment. Sorry for any confusion. I agree those numbers are pretty close, and of course you are correct that replication has been the LENR devil for a long time.

  • ivanc

    Frank, Could you ask the same question to IH?
    Will they give the same answer?

  • ivanc

    Frank, Could you ask the same question to IH?
    Will they give the same answer?

  • theBuckWheat

    It is good news that more people know how to make all components, including the charge. Some have worried that such an important advancement in the human condition could be snuffed out. LENR will have tremendous effect on world power dynamics when its use becomes commercially viable. The E-Cat could displace a good fraction of the liquid petroleum fuels used in applications such as ship boilers, large diesel such as used in power plants, railroad locomotives, large trucks. It could tip Arab OPEC nations into national budget crisis.

  • theBuckWheat

    It is good news that more people know how to make all components, including the charge. Some have worried that such an important advancement in the human condition could be snuffed out. LENR will have tremendous effect on world power dynamics when its use becomes commercially viable. The E-Cat could displace a good fraction of the liquid petroleum fuels used in applications such as ship boilers, large diesel such as used in power plants, railroad locomotives, large trucks. It could tip Arab OPEC nations into national budget crisis.

  • bitplayer

    I just noticed this: the Lugano report is on Arvix

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

    • pelgrim108

      Its the first report not the second from Lugano

      • bitplayer

        Thanks for the correction. Time to rearrange the medicine cabinet again; it appears I took an idiot pill.. :-}

        • Fortyniner

          Take two genius pills with a glass of water and you’ll be fine again by tomorrow.

  • jousterusa

    That the manufacturing of the E-Cat has moved to this advanced stage, where others can do all the work Rossi once did alone, inspires me to believe that an even smaller, more powerful E-Cat that can easily supplement or replace residential heating and power needs is not far away. One day a real E-Cat reactor will be available at the size of a ballpoint pen!

    • georgehants

      Quora
      Does this report on Rossi’s E-cat confirm that cold fusion (or LENR) is a true phenomenon? …
      http://www.quora.com/Does-this-report-on-Rossis-E-cat-confirm-that-cold-fusion-or-LENR-is-a-true-phenomenon-Page-on-wordpress-com

      • psi2u2

        I don’t really follow the logic of your claim. Why does Dardan’s wanting to “benefit the world” preclude him being strategic about how he does it? Anyone who watches this in any serious way must realize that the regulatory issues could be very big. I see Dardan being pretty strategic. Maybe he is doing this because he really does care who brings out a working LENR device ready for the market and wants it to be his team — which, after all, would be entirely understandable. Or maybe he just feels that being lowkey right now is best for the entire LENR community.

        Regarding the report authors, I agree, I would like to hear from them in some way.

        • Omega Z

          All in perspective.
          Darden doesn’t Care if someone beats them to market.
          However, He isn’t going to give away Industrial Heats IP.

          Take Note that competition is good. Someone else may come up with a better approach then Rossi/IH. If they freely gave away the technology, these other approaches could be delayed for years.

      • psi2u2

        Good. I didn’t mean that I did not appreciate the desire for more information. I share it.

  • jousterusa

    That the manufacturing of the E-Cat has moved to this advanced stage, where others can do all the work Rossi once did alone, inspires me to believe that an even smaller, more powerful E-Cat that can easily supplement or replace residential heating and power needs is not far away. One day a real E-Cat reactor will be available at the size of a ballpoint pen!

  • When he was not involved in manufacturing and preparing the charge, WHY was he at the lugano test site? Couldn’t someone other from the IH staff insert and remove the charge?

    Since Rossi himself did this, this let’s room for fraud-speculations.

    • Ophelia Rump

      So are you suggesting that he substituted a real fuel for a fake fuel which was in the original charge? Why not just supply a real fuel, because whatever was in there was world changing.

      Or are you suggesting he swapped out the real used fuel for fake used fuel, for what purpose?

      Your line of reasoning does not appear to be reasoning at all if you consider the implications.

      • I was refering to the patho-sceptics. But it makes me a bit worry, too.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I do agree with you that he should not have been allowed in the same nation as the test. It shows a lack of hindsight.

          • But they were religious about not sharing the results with him until publication. Strange behavior. The only thing I can think of is that the arrangement was contractual and the investigators had no choice but to permit Rossi to set up and tear down the reactor.

            If so, not the best decision by IH.

          • This is what I meant.

            In the case you described the Test was simply a “Test”, done by a few hired Professors. But it was in no way independent.

            All involved Persons should have known that a report with such a background won’t be printed in a peer-review journal. This was clear from the beginning.

            The report was a little step forward for people who already where interested in the ecat. But not the breakthrough most of us hoped.

          • mytakeis

            The 30 or so days running was without Rossi’s presence. Was not there to influence anything. The set up and removal of fuel done by any other than himself is open to all kinds of mishaps, in my opinion, and having the inventor do it, albeit not the ideal, was an assurance that it would be done right enough to let the running speak for itself, so to speak.

        • bitplayer

          Maybe he was just really paranoid about the proprietary value of the charge. He was giving almost all everything else away. So he’s going to trust who, exactly, to fly across the Atlantic with the fruits of his very intensive efforts and safely hand it over to the investigators?

  • When he was not involved in manufacturing and preparing the charge, WHY was he at the lugano test site? Couldn’t someone other from the IH staff insert and remove the charge?

    Since Rossi himself did this, this let’s room for fraud-speculations.

    • Ophelia Rump

      So are you suggesting that he substituted a real fuel for a fake fuel which was in the original charge? Why not just supply a real fuel, because whatever was in there was world changing.

      Or are you suggesting he swapped out the real used fuel for fake used fuel, for what purpose?

      Your line of reasoning does not appear to be reasoning at all if you consider the implications.

      • ivanc

        Dear Ophelia, why do you think the resistor drop in ohms value by a factor of 3.3
        Is that possible?
        Could you please give your opinion
        also could you say your position about the IL/2 vs IL/sqrt(3) issue?

        • observer

          Because it was engineered to do so. The question you should ask yourself is why did Rossi want the resistance to drop, and how does the potentiometer enter into the discussion.

          • ivanc

            what you mean about the potentiometer?
            The change of value of the resistor is an electric impossibility materials do not change properties in that dramatic way. this is why I am asking for a disclosure of the voltage readings.
            if Rossi is able to really cause this change of resistance in the e-cat resistor, then this will be a discovery worth of a Nobel by itself.
            And why publish a report that has the IL/2 error? to the scientific community and you do not correct or give reasons to support your position,

          • observer

            A digital micro-controller and a potentiometer are mentioned along with a TRIAC to regulate the heater power. Which one is controlling the TRIAC, the micro-controller or the potentiomater? Is the potentiometer used for current limiting the heater?

            You do not have to change the properties of matter to build a thermal switch. Nobel’s do not come that easy. If the power analysis was in error, than why did the dummy run have a COP of 1?

      • I was refering to the patho-sceptics. But it makes me a bit worry, too.

        In my oppinion Rossi should now try to stay in the background. So no one who has a bad impression of Rossi can then bring arguments like “Rossi cheated”.

        IH alone, without the public presence of Rossi, should handle coming events. Rossi should stay in the background.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I do agree with you that he should not have been allowed in the same nation as the test. It shows a lack of hindsight.

          • But they were religious about not sharing the results with him until publication. Strange behavior. The only thing I can think of is that the arrangement was contractual and the investigators had no choice but to permit Rossi to set up and tear down the reactor.

            If so, not the best decision by IH.

          • This is what I meant.

            In the case you described the Test was simply a “Test”, done by a few hired Professors. But it was in no way independent.

            All involved Persons should have known that a report with such a background won’t be printed in a peer-review journal. This was clear from the beginning.

            The report was a little step forward for people who already were interested in the ecat. But not the breakthrough most of us hoped.

          • HS61AF91

            The 30 or so days running was without Rossi’s presence. Was not there to influence anything. The set up and removal of fuel done by any other than himself is open to all kinds of mishaps, in my opinion, and having the inventor do it, albeit not the ideal, was an assurance that it would be done right enough to let the running speak for itself, so to speak.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It sounds like compartmentalization and specialization, so it may be that none of the people who contribute to making the charges know more than their fraction of the process.

    • Charles

      Good thinking Ophelia. In my past life, I was chief product engineer for the world’s greatest marine inertial navigation guidance system. (it was, that is not hyperbole). I knew that system from the first laser to the last door latch. As soon as Rossi said IH was doing the manufacture, I immediately thought: “how is the knowledge being split”? Were it me, I would likely split it between different buildings in separate geographical areas and make sure as far as possible that those involved didn’t even know each other’s involvement.

  • Ophelia Rump

    It sounds like compartmentalization and specialization, so it may be that none of the people who contribute to making the charges know more than their fraction of the process.

    • Charles

      Good thinking Ophelia. In my past life, I was chief product engineer for the world’s greatest marine inertial navigation guidance system. (it was, that is not hyperbole). I knew that system from the first laser to the last door latch. As soon as Rossi said IH was doing the manufacture, I immediately thought: “how is the knowledge being split”? Were it me, I would likely split it between different buildings in separate geographical areas and make sure as far as possible that those involved didn’t even know each other’s involvement.

  • kasom

    “The reactor used in Lugano is just one out of many of them manufactured
    on the factory of IH by their workers, directed by their engineers.”

    After A.R. told us, that the current 1MW low temp cat is the first ever beeing in operation under load, the question comes up, whether the MANY dogbone cats of the Lugano type are tested under load.

    Extracting useful heat from a hot cat might be most interesting thing these days.

    Glowing in a lab these are nice gadgets, but heating a public pool for example would make everyone stop fooling around and accept the tech.

  • georgehants

    Quora
    Does this report on Rossi’s E-cat confirm that cold fusion (or LENR) is a true phenomenon? …
    http://www.quora.com/Does-this-report-on-Rossis-E-cat-confirm-that-cold-fusion-or-LENR-is-a-true-phenomenon-Page-on-wordpress-com

  • georgehants

    Energy 2.0 Society sees Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) as a new and
    potentially revolutionary source of energy that should be part of a
    broad public discussion, and the subject of research and development.
    http://energy2point0.org/what-is-lenr/

  • georgehants

    Energy 2.0 Society sees Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) as a new and
    potentially revolutionary source of energy that should be part of a
    broad public discussion, and the subject of research and development.
    http://energy2point0.org/what-is-lenr/

  • Gerrit

    “I had no role in the preparation of the reactor and of the charges”

    Rossi is telling the truth, because if this would not be the truth, Industrial Heat would notice this statement and get very upset that Rossi is spreading misinformation.

    Industrial Heat is thus capable of manufacturing the reactors AND the fuel independently of Rossi. They most certainly have experimented with them and concluded that the ecat works.

    Based on these facts it is ridiculous to believe that Rossi is somehow fooling Industrial Heat. It is also ridiculous to believe that Industrial Heat is supporting a scam.

    I fail to find a rationale for believing that Rossi rigged the TIP evaluation. Even if the report shows weaknesses, it doesn’t change the fact that Industrial Heat is really working hard to roll out the ecat into a production setting.

    • Freethinker

      I agree, but I still must comment on the so called “weakness” of the report.

      You need to assume extreme negligence or foul play, to say that the input power was not correctly computed. Two PCE-830, data logged, likely not only the power but RMS for current and voltage for each line as well as phase. It would be EASY for the testers to verify that the in power is correctly measured. Also the temperature are within reason well measured and a relevant proxy of the output power.

      Taking those two observables, accepting them measured reasonably, will give at hand that the claims made in the report are validated.

      That is not weak.

      All critique is centered on things not described at all or not well enough. Typically things outside the scope of the report. That means that all critique will by necessity be based on conjecture and in some cases pure confabulation.

      • DickeFix

        Lets just discuss measurement data, not the people involved. Regarding the report there are two alternatives:

        1. Reported values of the RMS current were correct. This gives COP≈1

        2. Reported values of the power were correct. This gives COP≳3

        You can not argue that both power and current are correct and COP≳3 without
        assuming a very strange behaviour of the resistance of the Inconel
        heating coils.

        Hence, if you believe alternative 2 you need to simultaneously explain why the current readings were wrong. The current and power were measured with same instrument. Either the instrument was malfunctioning, the RMS currents were wrongly copied to the report or the direction of one of the currents was wrongly measured. However, the latter explanation would still lead to alternative 1.

        • Gerrit

          Why don’t you explain how the isotope shift came about.

          If you believe Rossi rigged the evaluation, then please explain either:
          1) Rossi is fooling Industrial Heat
          or
          2) Industrial Heat is in on the scam.

        • Freethinker

          You are looking at things not in the scope.

          You have only non information to help you build your conjecture.
          Again, you cannot compare the dummy with the running reactor.

          You have no idea of the details of the control box, if there where things added or modified or what software was running in the controller. What voltage did you have in the case of the running reactor? There is so much NON information that anything you build up is pure conjecture and prove nothing.

          If going with the data presented, things within the scope, and accepting that it was measured within reason, as well as the temperature of the reactor surface, then the COP is 3 or more.

        • Fortyniner

          Andrea Rossi
          October 20th, 2014 at 11:36 AM
          “The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it.” (1 typo corrected).

          So the coils are much more complex than simple inconel resistance windings. Without knowing either the construction or operating characteristics of electrical conductors within the reactor, or the nature of waveforms supplied to them, it seems pointless to construct arguments based on assumptions that probably don’t apply.

          The test group reported the figures they obtained from their instruments, so unless we are ready to level accusations of incompetence or complicity in fraud at them, perhaps we should just wait for further information.

          • Obvious

            FWIW, I re-calculated the Joule heating to be about 1/2 of the reported values. It does not affect the ratio of power of the dummy run to the active run in any way that I can see, however.

          • DickeFix

            “The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it.”

            Only the resistivity of semiconductors are sensitive to doping. Whether the alloy is conventional Inconel or slightly change composition will hence not have any significant impact on the resistance of the heating coils or their temperature behaviour

            I agree that we need to wait for further information and am a bit worried that the test group is so silent. I feel a bit sorry for them if it turns out that their original conclusion has to be revised…

          • Freethinker

            “… and am a bit worried that the test group is so silent. I feel a bit sorry for them if it turns out that their original conclusion has to be revised…”

            😀 😀

            Yeah, you do. Not.

          • DickeFix

            I definitely do feel sorry for the test group! They are competent researchers in their respective fields and brave to participate in this controversial test. Even a minuscule probability that LENR exists should be investigated since the potential benifits for mankind is so large. I hence fully support the researchers decision to participate in the test.

            Unfortunately, they have not the correct expertise for three phase power measurements and what is obvious from the discussion on this site is that such measurements are neither trivial nor intuitive. I feel sorry if they made a mistake so they have to revise their conclusions. It would probably destroy their scientific reputation and overshadow their lifetime contribution in their respective fields. And I am afraid that Rossi and IH will put the full blame on them even if they were tricked in some way.

          • Obvious

            I think it has been obvious that Inconel was not used for the resistors right from the start. All “normal’ Inconel alloys would have melted, or be on the brink of melting at 1400°C. I can’t imagine running an Inconel wire 30° from melting for days on end without mishap. The professors were worried about hot spots melting holes in the wire just on the ramp-up to the dummy run temperature.

        • US_Citizen71

          Not an EE but I believe this explains the issue. from the end of this: http://signal-conditioners.com/apps/AN11001%20True%20RMS%20Basics.pdf

          “One last example – Triac-controlled sine wave (Figure 3). If the waveform is turned on at 40% of the

          cycle (72 degrees) the average voltage turns out to be 0.417 times the peak; RMS is 0.613 times the

          peak. RMS is 1.47 times the average so, again, a simple average-responding measurement would

          produce a serious error.

          Conclusion: Use true-RMS measurement whenever your voltage is not a pure sine wave.”

          • Freethinker

            Which the TP test team has done. PCE-830 measure true RMS

          • US_Citizen71

            Semantics and assumptions get you every time. I would have to reread the report but if they do not specify true-RMS they should update it to read as such to prevent further misunderstandings.

          • Freethinker

            Well, a fair observation, and nice find anyway.

          • US_Citizen71

            I know a power systems engineer rather well (descended from him), I would like to run the numbers past him, but do not see current or voltage numbers in the report just power numbers. Have you seen them displayed in another addendum or such?

          • Freethinker

            No. I haven’t. That is why most of the critics argument on the currents are conjectures, as they are deducing things from NON information. For the dummy, it is fairly clear what the average current is, as it is used in giving the joule heating for the dummy, and there is a ballpark estimate on the current for the active reactor, but that is all.

            Per line, there seem to be I=19.7 A RMS for the dummy, and there is mention of 40-50 A for the active reactor. Likely the control box house transformers.

            The dummy pull 486 W, and using P=U*I would give a voltage out of 486/(3*19.7) = 8.2 V. That would be RMS values. As the voltage is pulsed, with some duty cycle of perhaps 10%, there would be some 20-40 V per peak. So one may guess and speculate.

            It is still conjecture. By accepting that the input power is understood, and the temperature of the reactor surface is likewise understood, all this guessing will be irrelevant, as the data will speak for itself, showing that the claims been reasonably validated.

          • US_Citizen71

            Thanks! I was hoping that there was new data I hadn’t run into that was fueling comments like DickeFix’s above. Although I’m 99.9% convinced that Rossi has what he says he does I try to keep an open mind when reading skeptical comments.

          • Obvious

            Well….., I do have a new Intentionally Reversed Clamp story that makes sense…. and has nothing to do with multiplying the reported input power.
            I thought that might just add more trees through which to see the forest, though.

          • Obvious

            My intuition says that voltage is a conserved constant, and is conserved in each individual measurement case. Without knowing the voltage in a comparable case, the constant cannot be invoked in order to properly compare the I^2R versions of power to from one measurement to another at a different power.
            I don’t have either the math or data required to demonstrate that unfortunately.
            My mental image is of a 3-D solid of Watts, made from V, I and R. Using only I^2R describes only a slice of the 3-D object.

          • Freethinker

            The thing is, when you compare between the dummy run and the active run, the control box is likely amped up for the active run, i.e. have a different setup. Again this is non information on which one can draw no viable conclusions. There is nothing defining the voltage and amplitudes of the currents in the active run. There are values as read from the instruments, tentatively given for the current. Those values are likely RMS values. To me it is very likely that the RMS voltage is NOT same, but again that is conjecture.

            We do not need this reasoning as it will not help us draw conclusions. The in power and out temperature show conclusively that the claims made within the scope are valid.

          • Obvious

            I agree that the input measurements are good, to the best of anyone’s knowledge.

            My best-matching simulation required ~330 W added to all of my calculated power values, plus or minus about 10. This suggests a hidden constant or very specific function is hiding in the incomplete public data.

          • ivanc

            You have left me stunned, speechless, but then I realized is just your intuition.
            instead of imagining, get a good book in alternate circuits, rms , 3phase and you see is not that difficult.
            Using RMS simplify things, otherwise you need high maths and trigonometry plus complex numbers to understand what the issues are.
            actually the calculation of the i_one_element_delta= IL/sqrt(3) is done using differnce of phases and angles. the use of IL/2 is capital sin for any EE

          • Obvious

            Napoleons Theorem can be used to affect rotational symmetry of the balanced delta equations. The proofs of the theorem show that the equivalent rotation can be used to rotate the complex vector delta math to a more simple case based on a strategically selected reference angle.

          • Obvious

            I had a ah-ha moment. Using the sometimes posited 1.23 Ohms for R
            …………….P = V^2/R
            …………479 = V^2/R
            (1.23)(479) = V^2…… but you can’t. P is a constant.

          • Obvious

            Ah-ha number two. These are W/h, not just W, averaged over 100’s of hours. If the reactor ran only 1/2 of the time (50% duty cycle) the current would still be high (~50 A), the power production when on would be the same as the figures suggest. But would be only 1/2 of the W/h.

          • ivanc

            Yes, I agree, so if we reading true RMS, why you keep insisting in IL/2 instead of IL/sqrt(3) ?

          • Freethinker

            And why are you insisting on your sqrt(3) when it is not applicable? Especially as your line of reasoning is aiming to prove something based on things you have information about, thus based on conjecture, and is out of scope from the test perspective.

            Assuming no clamps are inverted, do you accept that the PCE-830 will give the correct power reading for the input? Do you accept the temperature measurement of the reactor surface? If so, you must accept the claims made.

          • forget about sqrt(3) as it is switched 3phase.

            the comment in the report which is only there to give a quick estimation of current to be able to neglect it later let me think that it is not at all symmetric 3phase, even switched.

            if really I1rms=i2rms=I3rms/2 you will agree that i1(t)=i2(t)=-i3(t)/2
            I don’t believe in that as it would be hard to do with the proposed triac dimmer.

            what is the most probable is that it is Iavg=average(abs(i(t)) that is measured and cited as I1=I2=I3/2

            the best hypothesis have been proposed on e-cat world (forget who, thanks to him).

            you have to know that triac normally are switched off at zerocurrent, zerovoltage.

            if you see 3 dephased sinusoid, you will find that to respectthat rue you have to trigger the triac so tha two different phases triacs are switched while the voltage are going down (assume low angle) to the same value… then you wait for the crossing between the two voltage, and you let the triacs switch off at zero current/voltage.

            you can have something that looks like what is said in the report is you switch triac 1 and 3, then later 2 and 3, wait a little, the 1 and 3 and later 2 and 3… C3 you see 2 pulse positive, then 2 negative, coming from C1 and C2 alternatively

            the way those currents adds are not sqrt3 but more like sqrt(2) because the average power is the sum of the average power of each pulse independently (none is merging with the others)

        • US_Citizen71

          I just searched the report at http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf and RMS is not even written any where in the report so where are the “Reported values of the RMS current were correct” that you are referring to coming from?

          • Obvious

            The term “average” is used a few times in the report, and is critical when considering what the values imply about the circuit.
            For example: The total power in a delta circuit can be calculated using the instantaneous power measured and summed from only two corners (two wattmeter method). The third corner will have an inverse value of the sum of the other two (with the clamp the right way around), totaling zero for all three corners.
            So what does an average power reading of 479 W mean?
            Using the two corners (wattmeters) method, any combination that adds up to 479 W instantaneous power is correct. So if one corner reads 479 W, the other one is zero, (and the third corner is -479 W.
            Using 479 W at both corners is incorrect, (they would sum to 958 W) but 1/2 479 W would be OK.
            The average of both corners’ measurements being 479 W is possible. But they cannot be 479 W each at the same time.

        • Obvious

          The key to imagining the consequences of the RMS current in the wiring is to imagine that the amp clamp is much wider. Then slide it over the entire circuit, starting at a C1 cable, over a pair of C2 cables, over two resistors, fold the third resistor in half and have one C2 cable on each side (either pointing into or out of the delta as desired, but between either the first two resistors or the final C2 cables) then along the two remaining C2 cables and then the final C1 cables. The amperage measured will be the same as the first C1 cable along the entire circuit length when drawn out this way.

        • Obvious

          I have a solution that satisfies all of the electrical criteria.
          The professors’ Watt input stays.
          The C2 1/2 of C1 stays.
          The COP > 3 stays.
          There are no electrical miracles in the coils.
          The Joule heat of the cables I am sure are overestimated by 200%, but this does not have a significant effect on the overall results.
          The currents in the coils are high (~40 A), and are directly proportional to Joule heating of the cables and are the same as the currents calculated by several of us.
          The input resistor power is very high in the active run. Up to 3000 W, as calculated by several of us.

          • DickeFix

            “The COP > 3 stays.”
            “The input resistor power is very high in the active run. Up to nearly 3000 W, as calculated by several of us.”

            You mean input power to the resistor coils? But if input power is 3000W then it is larger than the estimated output power and COP<1. Maybe I misunderstand you.

          • Obvious

            You understand correctly. COP can remain high, since the Watts reported are actually Joules. Which means time has to be considered. You can get Watts from Joules, but once the time is dropped from the equations, you can’t get time back.
            So turn the reactor off 70% of the time, and on 30% of the time, over an extended period of time and suddenly the Joules are 30% of the calculated electrical Watt values.

  • Gerrit

    “I had no role in the preparation of the reactor and of the charges”

    Rossi is telling the truth, because if this would not be the truth, Industrial Heat would notice this statement and get very upset that Rossi is spreading misinformation.

    Industrial Heat is thus capable of manufacturing the reactors AND the fuel independently of Rossi. They most certainly have experimented with them and concluded that the ecat works.

    Based on these facts it is ridiculous to believe that Rossi is somehow fooling Industrial Heat. It is also ridiculous to believe that Industrial Heat is supporting a scam.

    I fail to find a rationale for believing that Rossi rigged the TIP evaluation. Even if the report shows weaknesses, it doesn’t change the fact that Industrial Heat is really working hard to roll out the ecat into a production setting.

    • Freethinker

      I agree, but I still must comment on the so called “weakness” of the report.

      You need to assume extreme negligence or foul play, to say that the input power was not correctly computed. Two PCE-830, data logged, likely not only the power but RMS for current and voltage for each line as well as phase. It would be EASY for the testers to verify that the in power is correctly measured. Also the temperature are within reason well measured and a relevant proxy of the output power.

      Taking those two observables, accepting them measured reasonably, will give at hand that the claims made in the report are validated.

      That is not weak.

      All critique is centered on things not described at all or not well enough. Typically things outside the scope of the report. That means that all critique will by necessity be based on conjecture and in some cases pure confabulation.

      • DickeFix

        Lets just discuss measurement data, not the people involved. Regarding the report there are two alternatives:

        1. Reported values of the RMS current were correct. This gives COP≈1

        2. Reported values of the power were correct. This gives COP≳3

        You can not argue that both power and current are correct and COP≳3 without
        assuming a very strange behaviour of the resistance of the Inconel
        heating coils.

        Hence, if you believe alternative 2 you need to simultaneously explain why the current readings were wrong. The current and power were measured with same instrument. Either the instrument was malfunctioning, the RMS currents were wrongly copied to the report or the direction of one of the currents was wrongly measured. However, the latter explanation would still lead to alternative 1.

        • Gerrit

          Why don’t you explain how the isotope shift came about.

          If you believe Rossi rigged the evaluation, then please explain either:
          1) Rossi is fooling Industrial Heat
          or
          2) Industrial Heat is in on the scam.

          • DickeFix

            The only realistic explanation for the isotope shift (even if LENR and E-Cat would work) is that the samples are not representative of the bulk fuel and ash. This can in turn be due to coincidence in sampling or that the samples were switched unintentionally or intentionally. I don´t want to speculate more and accuse anyone of fraud. But the message from Rossi sounds to me as the base for his future defense strategy; he was not responsible in any way for the tests and hence innocent.

          • Anon2012_2014

            I will become certain in the LENR reaction from this type of experiment when the fuel and then the ash is in a chain of custody from the supplier to/from BOTH the reactor and the test lab(s).

            The break in custody — where “.01 grams was supplied” to the lab, or where the fuel “was given to us in an envelope” is not a chain of custody. It is not proof because we don’t know that either supplied material is the actual fuel in the reactor or the ash from the reactor. If we have proof of chain of custody and the fuel/ash test results, we have proof of a nuclear reaction. This is independent of the COP results.

            As for the COP results >1, for me, this simply need this to be done again by several labs and then let a peer review scientific community (with greater expertise than myself) come to consensus that the measurement methods are valid.

            I am most interested in the isotopic shifts as proof certain.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I don’t believe this, in Rossi’s ten plus previous tests he has been accused of being “around” the test and doing all sorts of unethical acts to achieve LENR results, now he being accused of a “defense strategy” for NOT being “around” the tested reactor. Unbelievable!

          • DickeFix

            A defense strategy may deviate from the truth. However, at the moment, I don´t want to accuse Rossi for anything since there are no proofs. There may still be other explanations to the test results.

          • Gerrit

            No it cannot be coincidence. As I have explained before Industrial Heat has the proficiency to make both the reactor AND the fuel. They have performed tests themselves independently of Rossi. You cannot argue that it has been an endless lucky streak of “happy little accidents” that makes Rossi and Industrial Heat sincerely believe they have something that isn’t there.

            “Let’s have a third party evaluate our device” – “Oh look, the happy little accident happened AGAIN” – “Let’s have the third party evaluate the device once more, but more thoroughly” – “Oh look, the happy little accident happened AGAIN”

            It’s either a scam or real. As you refuse to consider the ecat being real, you now have the burden to explain the scam. How did Rossi manage to fool Industrial Heat when they are capable of making a reactor and the fuel independently of Rossi?

            “But the message from Rossi sounds to me as the base for his future defense strategy; he was not responsible in any way for the tests and hence innocent.”
            Why are you suddenly complaining that Rossi was not responsible? Just before you were complaining that Rossi was present at the test site and that he was responsible for opening the reactor. You really don’t know what you want.

          • DickeFix

            Rossi’s claim above of not being involved in the experiment may not be true. On the contrary, the paper mentioned that he took active part in the fuel loading and ash retrieval.

            However, this claim is still a possible strategy to defend himself and escape responsibility if it turns out to be necessary.

          • Mark Szl

            I agree that it is hard to buy into the fraud/scam idea without more evidence.

            It could be that even though the Ecat worked, there still was something wrong with the set-up that nobody noticed at the time. In other words, the overall conclusions of the report are correct but the numbers are off.

            I would be nice to clear this up … it still bothers me … for some reason.

        • Freethinker

          You are looking at things not in the scope.

          You have only non information to help you build your conjecture.
          Again, you cannot compare the dummy with the running reactor.

          You have no idea of the details of the control box, if there where things added or modified or what software was running in the controller. What voltage did you have in the case of the running reactor? There is so much NON information that anything you build up is pure conjecture and prove nothing.

          If going with the data presented, things within the scope, and accepting that it was measured within reason, as well as the temperature of the reactor surface, then the COP is 3 or more.

          • DickeFix

            I will accept that both current and power values are trustworthy if you explain a possible (=realistic) reason for the measurement results. I can accept that LENR may happen so you don´t need to explain that, only the electrical results. Hence, no giant magnetic pulses, semiconductor coils, current injection via beta or alpha particles or superconductivity!

          • Freethinker

            Ok, but how am I supposed to do that?

            You are hellbent to look at data that is irrelevant from the perspective of the test scope.

            I assume it is the joule heating you mean, so:

            PJHd/PJHa=(Id/Ia)² -> Ia ~= [2.3-2.5] * Id

            Hopefully it make sense.

            Another thing, there is stated in the report that the current could be as high as 40-50. I think they mean the RMS value per line for the active reactor. That mean a factor of 2-2.5 between dummy and the active reactor in current RMS per line. That seem to fit the Joule heat calculations well enough.

            The question is, what is the voltage? Lets take the largest power in RMS as stated in table 7, 923 W. Assume 50 A RMS per line. 923/150 = 6.15 V. Do the same with the dummy 486 W RMS and 19.7 A per line. 486/59.1=8.20 V. That means you have 25% diff there.

            Now take the case 923 vs 486. Also compare power in for dummy and active, 923/486=1.9, close to 2. Remember, P=U*I, and compare the two cases, active and dummy reactor. Note that Ua/Ud=0.75. The current quota was 2.5 in this case. 2.5*0.75=1.9. That means, that if you take into account the voltage, your discrepancy will disappear.

            Note that the OUTPUT power is estimated to 2381 W for the case of 923 W in, see table 7. 2381/486 = 4.9. Compensating for the voltage, you get 4.9/0.75 = 6.5. If you had COP 1 for the dummy, you would have to pump 6.5 more current to have COP 1 for the active reactor with the apparent power out of 2381 W if it was nothing but a heater. But most of it is just conjecture.

            Please remember the scope. A black box test. Power in, temperature out, as the two observables. You are messing with the non information, where you have a computed entity, for which you have no clear picture of the circumstances, that you compare in two very much different scenarios, to conclude that these seasoned scientists and engineers, being at work for half a year with this test and analysis, were wrong in their claims.

          • ivanc

            Unfortunately freethinker you are not doing the caculation properly.
            this is how should be done:
            50A, 923w input power.
            current in 1 ecat resistence=50/sqrt(3)=28.87A
            Power in 1 ecat resistence=923/3=307.7 W
            p=vi, v=p/i
            then:
            v=10.66v
            This is why you do not understand. you using 2phase to calculate 3phase.
            all this values are using RMS. the report says they mesured RMS.

          • US_Citizen71

            No it doesn’t say they used RMS the abbreviation does not appear any where in the report. Right or wrong they use average current to refer to the 19.7A. It doesn’t really matter, the numbers for the wiring of the Ecat itself really only allow us to look at and guess at how it works. The line in power measurements from the wall to the setup tell everything that needs to be known to determine a total system COP and they give a number greater than three.

          • ivanc

            you know is RMS because they are using PCE-830 meter.
            only DC or RMS are used in ohms law.
            otherwise instantaneous analysis is needed and you have to integrate the wave. I have not seen Levi doing this. still ohms is valid for the instantaneous states but any power will have to be integrated

          • Freethinker

            And you are still wrong Ivan 😀

          • Obvious

            Current in one (equal) Ecat resistance is 3/2 of the resistance of the total reactor. 923 W above is a sum of two corners of the delta. You must convert the delta to a wye before attempting such non-vector calculations. Otherwise you, too, are doing 2 phase calculations, or mixing two phase with three phase math.

          • ivanc

            you getting close to the truth. if you have a Y then Iresistor=Iline.

            so you know have to see how to transform the resistances for the Y equivalente of a delta.
            D to Y
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-%CE%94_transform
            R1=(rb rc)/(ra+rb+rc)
            now lets suppose all r abc=1
            power in each case D o Y is 3 times power in individual r delta or r Y.
            R1=1/3
            v=R IL , P=R IL^2, P=1/3 IL^2

            now use the same values for the delta. r=1

            P=(IL/sqrt(3))^2 * 1 = 1/3 IL^2

            OHHHH!, Freethinker and obvious, why both results are equal.
            Now the Delta to Y transformation is independent of the current or voltage.
            or phase….. after this there is no more argument.
            Otherwise you simple do not undestand electricity.

          • Obvious

            Rxy=(ra+rb)rc /(ra+rb+rc)
            You measure the resistance between two delta corners (x,y), so Rxy
            Ignore C2 cables for now.
            One resistor is directly across the two corners (rc).
            Two resistors are across the one resistor, connected to the same corners. These are in series (ra+rb), and both are in parallel with the one resistor.(Draw the delta with one flat side up, this is the resistor side we are working with).
            Since all r’s are equal then
            Rxy = (r+r)r/r+r+r
            Rxy = (2r)r/3r
            Rxy = 2r/3
            3(Rxy) = 2r
            r =3(Rxy)/2

            I repeat: If you insist on doing the math using the square root of three, you are only calculating one phase at a time. If this is the case, you must choose a fraction of the 479 W, for one phase, and then the remainder of that fraction that makes the total 479 W for the other phase. (The third phase is the inverse of the other two phases that reduces the circuit to zero.) The results of the two phases are still in parallel with each other, so in order to calculate the whole they must be combined using parallel circuit rules. If you insist on using the entire 479 W in one equation, then you are solving the entire equation at once, then the result is neither multiplied nor divided by any factor. It is the answer for the total circuit.
            So then:
            Rxy = W/I^2
            Rxy = 479/388.09
            Rxy = 1.234
            r = 3Rxy/2
            r = (3)1.234/2
            r = 1.851
            But that doesn’t matter, unless you want to build a reactor or do even more unnecessarily complex math. Rxy is good enough to work out the entire reactor circuit as a whole, which is much simpler than vector math. If we are attempting to decipher the “Joule heat problem”, we only need the entire reactor values.
            I have already solved the entire circuit. The solution is so simple I can’t believe we spent all this time fretting over it.

          • Obvious

            I think I also have a very simple solution for the infamous Lugano report OL PCE-830 pulse photo. The professors are sneaky…. and are protecting IH’s IP, more or less.

          • Dr. Mike

            Ivanc,
            I believe your calculations are correct, except for the “sqrt(3)” factor. I think I’ve figured out why the authors correctly used a factor of 1/2, rather than 1/SQRT(3). If the controller just reduced the voltage to the Inconel coils, supplying full sine waves to the loads, then the “1/SQURT(3)” term would be appropriate because the RMS current supplied by the controller would be the superposition of 2 sine waves that are 120 deg out of phase. The RMS of this superposition of currents results in the “1/SQRT(3)” factor. However, the TRIAC controller supplies a chopped waveform. Since the voltage applied to the each resistive coil during the dummy run is well less than 20V (RMS) the TRIAC can be assumed to have a short duty cycle, perhaps only 30 deg or less of a 180 deg half cycle. This means that a supreposition of 2 phases that are 120 deg apart will not overlap. As long as there is no overlap, the proper factor is 1/2. (C1 lines just have twice as many identical pulses as the C2 lines.) If the wave forms did partially overlap, the factor would come out somewhere between 1/2 and 1/SQRT(3).
            I’m not sure if the chopped waveforms of 2 adjacent phases overlap during the active run, but my guess is that they do not so the 1/2 factor is also valid for the active runs. Do you agree with the assessment? I believe the authors should state in the report that they are able to say the RMS current in C! can be assumed to split into two equal RMS currents in the C2 lines because the current waveforms do not overlap. I now believe that they measured the C2 RMS currents separately and found that the C2 RMS currents did add up to the C1 RMS current. Perhaps Thomas Clarke could add to this discussion.
            Note that if you agree that the factor for the chopped waveforms is “1/2”, the you need to recalculate the coil resistance and the voltage you calculated above. Another interesting calculation is the RMS voltage supplied to each Inconel coil for the dummy run vs. the active runs using the power data from Table 7 and the current data calculated from the Joule heating data in Table 7. You will find the the supplied voltage in the dummy run was actually higher than either of the portions of the active run. It would be interesting to see the data for the potentiometer setting for the dummy and active runs. For the active run did they first start slowly turning up the potentiometer setting and then decrease the setting as the nuclear reactions started to eventually reach the first active operating point?
            Dr. Mike

          • ivanc

            The reason your idea is wrong is the definiton of RMS. RMS is the effective current in the cycle. is the equivalent to DC, in other words, if you have 1 volt dc in 1 ohm you produce 1w.
            with RMS is the same.
            Ivolt RMS in 1ohm will produce 1w.
            so RMS has been distributed in the full cycle.
            and because any chopped current or voltage is the sum of its harmonics, is like you a playing with lots of sin waves, when they add up produce the chopped wave, this is why you could use and RMS meter, otherwise the meter is useles. and you have no idea what you have measured.

          • Dr. Mike

            ivanc,
            I had the definition of RMS correct, but I do see where I made an error. (I was making a calculation with only a portion of the wiring diagram.) So I am back to agreeing with you that the report needs a 1/SQRT(3) factor in calculating the RMS currents in the C2 lines. This means that the C2 line currents were not independently measured!
            Dr. Mike

          • Mark Szl

            Isn’t this what Thomas Kaminski already thought?

            Sounds like the authors of the report got everything pretty much everything right all along.

          • DickeFix

            ” This means that a supreposition of 2 phases that are 120 deg apart
            will not overlap. As long as there is no overlap, the proper factor is
            1/2.”

            But if the phases have no overlap (i.e. if they are not active simultaneously) there will be no current since there is no return path for the current. Then the input power is zero.

          • Dr. Mike

            DickeFix,
            You are correct-my error. I think ivanc is correct that the report should have used a 1/SQRT (3) factor in the currents going to the heater coils, which means they did not independently measure this current.
            Dr. Mike

          • Obvious

            Dr. Mike, please consider the reference angle of 90° for one phase. I think you will find that in that case the C2 cable current is one half of C1, for the first set of C1 and C2 cables. Follow the entire circuit to the ends of the other two C1 cables. The second set of C2 cables will also be 1/2 of the current in the first C1 cable (but only two of the four), and these two opposite C1 cables will have 1/2 of the first C1 current.
            You can confirm this by calculating the other two 120° offset cables’ reference angles (210° and 30°), but these should cancel or have a zero that nullifies them.

          • DickeFix

            Freethinker, I want to thank you for taking your time to calculate yourself. Your calculations assumes the input powers being correct and of course result in the same conclusion. However, for this to be true you find that the voltage must be decreasing when the current is increasing. You get 8.20 V at 19.7A and only 6.15 V when input current is 50A.

            This behaviour is impossible if the load is made by a resistive Inconel wire since U=R*I, i.e., the voltage should be proportional to the current. Ohms law is valid also for instantaneous currents and voltages as long as the reactance is much smaller than the resistance. This applies here since the inductance of the heating coils is insignificant at the 50-350 Hz frequency content of the pulsed current.

            From P=R*I^2 you see that the 2-2.5 times higher current in active test implies 4-6 times higher input power, i.e., 4*486-6*486=2000-3000W which is in the same range as output power, i.e., COP=1.

            It is really not your or mine responsibility to explain these inconsistencies in the measurement values but the test team’s. They should know the explanation since they have all the recorded test values. But after a month, they are still silent…

          • Freethinker

            And there you go. 😀

            Like I told you, it is conjectures based on information you don’t have. Your fail to realize that you cannot compare the active situation with the dummy., however “impossible” that may seem to you.

            You fail to realize that the voltage set in the active compared to the dummy, duty cycle and even how the control box is working is unknown, and outside the test scope to describe.

            You are extrapolating and guessing making your statement pure conjecture. You “find” evidence to data that can be equally well explained in other ways, albeit those explanations are not those you favor, so you stick with you special choice of conjectured explanation, that fits your believe that the ECAT does not work.

            Look at the scope, look at the data given for that within the scope, and the claims become fully acceptable.

          • Dr. Mike

            Freethinker,
            I don’t believe your calculations are correct. The load is the Inconel coils. The current to them is 9.85A for the dummy run and 2.3-2.5 times that for the active runs. These currents result in a COP of just below 1 for the first 10 days and just above 1 for the rest of the active test, assuming the Inconel heating wire resistance changed very little from the dummy run to the active runs.
            Dr. Mike

          • Freethinker

            😀
            Mike, ofcourse you don’t.

        • Mark Szl

          Thomas Kaminski thought the report or aspects of it are fine.

          https://disqus.com/home/user/thomaskaminski

          Ivanc like Dick think the report or aspects of it are not right

          https://disqus.com/home/user/disqus_jBXlGAChcx

          Frank/Administrator could you please ask Rossi to ask authors of report about this?

          • Freethinker

            Mark,

            Thomas Kaminski’s exercise is very interesting, and is a likely candidate to how the control box is feeding the ECAT. It would mean that the joule heating is slightly wrong – by a very small amount (I get it to 1/9th of the energy off in C2, but may be wrong as it is back of the envelope calculation), but the joule heating as such has only a very small impact on the output power, a couple of percent, anyway.

            But again, it is not needed to conclude the validity of the claims, as the actual waveform in feeding of the ECAT is out of scope, it is the RMS power in that matters.

        • Andrea Rossi
          October 20th, 2014 at 11:36 AM
          “The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it.” (1 typo corrected).

          So the ‘coils of the reactor’ are more complex than simple inconel resistance windings. Without knowing either the construction, purpose or operating characteristics of electrical conductors within the reactor, or the nature of waveforms supplied to them, it seems pointless to construct arguments based on assumptions that probably don’t apply.

          The test group reported the figures they obtained from their instruments, so unless we are ready to level accusations of incompetence or complicity in fraud at them, perhaps we should just wait for further information.

          • Obvious

            FWIW, I re-calculated the Joule heating to be about 1/2 of the reported values. It does not affect the ratio of power of the dummy run to the active run in any way that I can see, however.

          • DickeFix

            “The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it.”

            Only the resistivity of semiconductors is sensitive to doping. Whether the alloy is conventional Inconel or slightly modified composition will hence not have any significant impact on the resistance of the heating coils or their temperature behaviour

            I agree that we need to wait for further information and am a bit worried that the test group is so silent. I feel a bit sorry for them if it turns out that their original conclusion has to be revised…

          • Freethinker

            “… and am a bit worried that the test group is so silent. I feel a bit sorry for them if it turns out that their original conclusion has to be revised…”

            😀 😀

            Yeah, you do. Not.

          • DickeFix

            I definitely do feel sorry for the test group! They are competent researchers in their respective fields and brave to participate in this controversial test. Even a minuscule probability that LENR exists should be investigated since the potential benifits for mankind is so large. I hence fully support the researchers decision to participate in the test.

            Unfortunately, they have not the correct expertise for three phase power measurements and what is obvious from the discussion on this site is that such measurements are neither trivial nor intuitive. I feel sorry if they made a mistake so they have to revise their conclusions. It would probably destroy their scientific reputation and overshadow their lifetime contribution in their respective fields. And I am afraid that Rossi and IH will put the full blame on them even if they were tricked in some way.

          • ivanc

            Now Rossi is saying He gave wrong Info to Levi. because Levi states in the report the resistances are made of Inconel. and not that are just dopped.
            dopped means inconel will just be an impurity in the material.
            I think the Lugano Report is a really Hot Potato for Rossi.

          • Freethinker

            No ivan, you are wrong. Again.

            Doped Inconel mean that the Inconel had some other element or elements added to it in the manufacturing. It does not mean that there was alloy and the Iconel was added as an impurity to that material.

            From the perspective of the scope of the test, there is no need to know that the Inconel is doped or not. Not really. It has a some impact in computing the joule heat, but it represent a negligible part of the output computation (1-2%).

            You seem excited over this hot potato of yours. If you think Rossi is thinking of this as a hot potato, I think you are wrong. Again.

          • ivanc

            “The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it.”
            But I agree with you, the resistor should not be an issue for the ecat, specially as Rossi wants to use gas instead. so why the resistances will have to drop its value by a factor of 3.3.

          • Obvious

            I think it has been obvious that Inconel was not used for the resistors right from the start. All “normal’ Inconel alloys would have melted, or be on the brink of melting at 1400°C. I can’t imagine running an Inconel wire 30° from melting for days on end without mishap. The professors were worried about hot spots melting holes in the wire just on the ramp-up to the dummy run temperature.

        • US_Citizen71

          Not an EE but I believe this explains the issue. from the end of this: http://signal-conditioners.com/apps/AN11001%20True%20RMS%20Basics.pdf

          “One last example – Triac-controlled sine wave (Figure 3). If the waveform is turned on at 40% of the

          cycle (72 degrees) the average voltage turns out to be 0.417 times the peak; RMS is 0.613 times the

          peak. RMS is 1.47 times the average so, again, a simple average-responding measurement would

          produce a serious error.

          Conclusion: Use true-RMS measurement whenever your voltage is not a pure sine wave.”

          • Freethinker

            Which the TP test team has done. PCE-830 measure true RMS

          • US_Citizen71

            Semantics and assumptions get you every time.

          • Freethinker

            Well, a fair observation, and nice find anyway.

          • US_Citizen71

            I know a power systems engineer rather well (descended from him), I would like to run the numbers past him, but do not see current or voltage numbers in the report just power numbers. Have you seen them displayed in another addendum or such?

          • Freethinker

            No. I haven’t. That is why most of the critics argument on the currents are conjectures, as they are deducing things from NON information. For the dummy, it is fairly clear what the average current is, as it is used in giving the joule heating for the dummy, and there is a ballpark estimate on the current for the active reactor, but that is all.

            Per line, there seem to be I=19.7 A RMS for the dummy, and there is mention of 40-50 A for the active reactor. Likely the control box house transformers.

            The dummy pull 486 W, and using P=U*I would give a voltage out of 486/(3*19.7) = 8.2 V. That would be RMS values. As the voltage is pulsed, with some duty cycle of perhaps 10%, there would be some 20-40 V per peak. So one may guess and speculate.

            It is still conjecture. By accepting that the input power is understood, and the temperature of the reactor surface is likewise understood, all this guessing will be irrelevant, as the data will speak for itself, showing that the claims been reasonably validated.

          • US_Citizen71

            Thanks! I was hoping that there was new data I hadn’t run into that was fueling comments like DickeFix’s above. Although I’m 99.9% convinced that Rossi has what he says he does I try to keep an open mind when reading skeptical comments.

          • Obvious

            Well….., I do have a new Intentionally Reversed Clamp story that makes sense…. and has nothing to do with multiplying the reported input power.
            I thought that might just add more trees through which to see the forest, though.

          • Obvious

            My intuition says that voltage is a conserved constant, and is conserved in each individual measurement case. Without knowing the voltage in a comparable case, the constant cannot be invoked in order to properly compare the I^2R versions of power to from one measurement to another at a different power.
            I don’t have either the math or data required to demonstrate that unfortunately.
            My mental image is of a 3-D solid of Watts, made from V, I and R. Using only I^2R describes only a slice of the 3-D object.

            Hmmmmm…..
            Knowing V forces the I^2R plane to coalesce to a point within 3-D Wattspace.
            Wattspace moves along a time axis….
            Three phase power adds two more dimensions plus their own intersecting-at-a-point V, I, and R Wattspace (luckily along the same time axis).
            There now is 12(?) dimensions for the solution to live within…..

          • Freethinker

            The thing is, when you compare between the dummy run and the active run, the control box is likely amped up for the active run, i.e. have a different setup. Again this is non information on which one can draw no viable conclusions. There is nothing defining the voltage and amplitudes of the currents in the active run. There are values as read from the instruments, tentatively given for the current. Those values are likely RMS values. To me it is very likely that the RMS voltage is NOT same, but again that is conjecture.

            We do not need this reasoning as it will not help us draw conclusions. The in power and out temperature show conclusively that the claims made within the scope are valid.

          • Obvious

            I agree that the input measurements are good, to the best of anyone’s knowledge.

            My best-matching simulation required ~330 W to be added to all of my calculated power values, plus or minus about 10 to match the reported power. This suggests a hidden constant or very specific function is hiding in the incomplete public data. (or total fluke)

          • ivanc

            You have left me stunned, speechless, but then I realized is just your intuition.
            instead of imagining, get a good book in alternate circuits, rms , 3phase and you see is not that difficult.
            Using RMS simplify things, otherwise you need high maths and trigonometry plus complex numbers to understand what the issues are.
            actually the calculation of the i_one_element_delta= IL/sqrt(3) is done using differnce of phases and angles. the use of IL/2 is capital sin for any EE

          • Obvious

            Napoleons Theorem can be used to affect rotational symmetry of the balanced delta equations. The proofs of the theorem show that the equivalent rotational transformation can be used to rotate the complex vector delta math to a more simple case based on a strategically selected reference angle.

            ( I was hoping for a few mind-blowing episodes with the above-posted intuition. I don’t think it is that far off the mark, actually (maybe not the 12 dimensions, since they simplify to less than 6.)

            Considering the delta to be three balloons of power connected by their “spout”, may help. You can squeeze one or two of the balloons, and the power will squeeze into the others, but is conserved in total. If you squeeze all the power into one balloon, you can ignore the other two (because they will be empty of power).

            Like the three phase delta, if you know the “volume” of total power in the three balloons, you cannot definitely calculate the power in either of the other two balloons by only knowing the power in one balloon (one corner of the delta). You need to know the power in two balloons to know the third volume. Squeezing all the power into two balloons means that you can know the volume of the one of the balloons and subtract that volume from the total power to arrive at the volume of the other balloon, and ignore the third (empty) balloon. The exception to this generalization is the case where all three balloons have equal volumes…

            Now consider the reference angle.
            The reference angle is a line that passes through the interconnected spouts of the balloons. If the angle of the line is oblique to the balloon triangle symmetry, then trigonometry is required to solve the volumes of the balloons. (the exact centers of the balloons, or the exact difference between two balloons can form the other side of a triangle, [if they are known], but a 90° angle to the reference line is probably mathematically simpler. I think you need the symmetric opposite triangle to solve the three balloons). If the line exactly intersects the geometric center of a balloon, or exactly splits the difference between two balloons (this is the same thing, if the line passes through the vertex), then the opposite sides of the line are equal, and the trigonometry simplifies by cancelling the equal but opposite parts of the two symmetrical (in magnitude, but opposite in sign(?)) sides of the line.

            Anyways, I digress…

          • ivanc

            In our case, the power just have to add up arithmetically because is a normal number, it has no phase.
            The currents no, the currents have phase.
            special cases and angles does not apply, the report has not given this kind of data , it just gave us RMS, so we have to Use the RMS method.

          • Obvious

            (re: intuition)
            I had a ah-ha moment. Using the sometimes posited 1.23 Ohms for R
            …………….P = V^2/R
            …………479 = V^2/R
            (1.23)(479) = V^2…… but wait. You can’t arbitrarily alter P.
            So you can’t change V.
            P is a constant (invariant) in this case.
            So V has to remain invariant if R and P are already known invariant quantities (measured, normally impossible to change…).

          • Obvious

            Ah-ha number two. These are W/h, not just W, averaged over 100’s of hours. If the reactor ran only 1/2 of the time (50% duty cycle), when on, the current would still be high (~50 A), the power production could be as high as some figures suggest (up to 3000 W).
            But would only be 1/2 of the W/h.
            V can be either zero or the appropriate V^2 value. The zero periods are averaged with the active power measurement over time.

          • ivanc

            The data is there:
            in the dummy run, you have joule heating=power in cables
            user p=vi, v=RI, P=I^2 R
            Then the resistance of the cables are given. and are constant.

            the configuration is 3 feeding cables then 2 cables connecting to each ecat resistor making a delta, the 3 feeding cables are conected to the corners of the delta.
            so: joule heating = p lost in cable = 3(current in feeding cable)^2 * (resistance of feeding cable)+6(current in feeding cable/sqrt(3))^2*(resistance of cable making the delta).
            The current feeding the cable is also given.
            see section 4.3

            one error in the report is that they used (current in feeding cable /2) instead of dividing by sqrt(3) that is the way in delta 3phase.

            now you could calculate ecat resistor.

            Joule heating for the active run is given in page 22.

            now you could calculate current in ecat.
            having input power and current you could calculate resistance in ecat.
            This is how we know the resistance has changed by a factor of 3.3.
            with this values you could calculate voltages. etc.
            Yes there is enough data in the report to fully calculate the circuit.

            What the report is missing is the readings of current and voltage in the ecat resistors. to confirm the drop in resistance (that is an impossibility)

            I am not saying did not happen, I am saying should not happen. but I am asking for confirmation it happens.
            from this there is an hypothesis that the readings of power are wrong and that a phase was changed or connected incorrectly during the test.
            This is why more data is requested from the Levi team.

          • Obvious

            If you do not use 1/2 the current of C1 for each C2, then you must compute two phases’ worth of vector cable Joule heating and sum them.
            Tripling the Joule heat calculation of one C1 and two C2 cables (as in the report) is also not correct, however.
            If you do use 1/2 C1 for the first pair of C2 cables, then you must consider the remaining part of the circuit using the same frame of reference.

          • ivanc

            obvious, are you a student,professor,graduated? of electrical engineering.?
            You have all the theory wrong.
            you have a delta configuration.

            so at least 2 phases has to be active at a given time.
            but this is not important.
            what is important is the current is given in RMS, this means computed on the sum or all harmonics in a cycle, meaning the effective current for the full cycle. I am talking about a cycle of one phase, now you have 3phases all at 120degree. so you have to use sqrt(3).
            Please explain as clearly as posible why using 1/2 the current is ok.
            I promise to read carefully and replay if I could see were your argument is wrong, and if I can not find the wrong I will accept you are correct.

          • Obvious

            I would like a good, solid conversation on this circuit, and get the bugs out of both of our versions. This is not about me attacking anyone’s idea. I want to get it right.
            I have calculated the current in the active run three different ways, and have come to the same active run current result you have calculated for each row in your spreadsheet.
            The point of testing the calculations with multiple methods is that the results should match regardless, as long the process was done correctly each way.
            So:
            Attach the amp probe around both C2 cables coming from one C1 Cable. The opposite currents will cancel from the other two phases. The RMS current of the pair of C2 cables will read the same current as the C1 cable. This means you can split the load exactly 50/50 between cables.
            We must come to agreement on this point to move ahead.
            But resistance of the two wires then must be calculated using parallel wire rules.
            The entire circuit can be analyzed like this. This is the point of doing RMS measurements. You can skip the complex offset phase relationships in a balanced load by converting the circuit to a Wye, and treating it as a DC circuit (and a couple of other shortcuts).

          • ivanc

            if you have done your second course on alternate current you will know you can not addup or take away currents with different phase.
            but the meter can. this is why you still get the same reading.
            but if you read the cables separate you will find the readings will follow the sqrt(3) rule.
            so iL cos(a)=ir1 cos(b)+ir2 cos(c)
            but to avoid phase differences and complex numbers and al the complexities of alternate current, we use RMS.
            and work as it was DC, but you have to be careful to use the equivalances correctly.
            Just google for delta 3phase sqrt(3) and you find the reasons.
            also google

            average current/voltage
            RMS
            and you find the RMS is the equivalent to DC, and average is useles in alternate systems

          • Obvious

            You cannot add or take away a phase randomly (arbitrarily). But from the perspective of each phase relative to the other phases, the complete set of all the values of the other possible phase angles of the complete system are (individually) equivalent to all the others in a balanced system.

            In other words, if the reference phase angle is 10° for one phase, and the other two are offset respectively plus and minus 120°, the aggregate of all the powers, currents, and voltages will be same for the entire circuit (all three phases) as when the reference phase at 11°, 25°, 90°, etc.

            This means that there are some specific reference angles which conveniently remove or cancel parts of the (math representing) other phases, and these special cases can be exploited to simplify the math.

            Average values can easily throw a wrong turn into a calculation, unless there is a clear understanding of what and how the number is averaged.
            Using average values can, in effect, specify what the reference phase angle must be in some cases.

            *My electrical background is primarily in automotive electrical systems. I used to find and repair the “intractable” electrical problems from multiple car dealerships, as well as my own customers in a very busy shop. The worst, most impossible jobs eventually ended up at my shop. Cars, boats, RV’s, industrial machinery, even some planes. (The owners always referred to hovercraft, rather than planes…). Custom charging systems designed and assembled for multiple simultaneous voltages. (Low Riders and audio fanatics). I am also quite skilled with house electrical. (I can install four-way controlled light switches from scratch without getting confused, the first time). My house wiring has been inspected on many occasions and passed every time (with compliments). My DC experience makes me very particular about good connections.

            A week ago or so I was a complete newbie at three phase power. I am coming up to speed quickly, (I think).

          • ivanc

            You are doing very well,
            and see you trying hard to find a good explanation to the issue.
            the key is in the word RMS. and the meter they used, it was an RMS for voltage current and phase. and work out the power.
            They also got clamp amperimeters, have you seen a clamp that is not DC or RMS.
            Have you ever seen a meter that is not RMS or DC?
            Those are key ideas

          • ivanc

            You can not, use current and phases and simply use arithmetic in 2 or 3 phase.
            The only way the word average makes sense in the report, is is the average of multiple RMS readings.
            if you use angles then you have to write the proper equations and understand the the relation of the instantaneous currents.
            I see you trying to explain like a special case, if that was the case the report should have explain it,
            But not they just put IL/2 as the most natural and obvious thing.
            now if you use a clamp and put it in a bunch of cables, the clamp will read the resulting RMS current, it will add up the currents and phases correctly.
            But if you measure the cables one by one, and add up manually the result will not add up to the bunch reading.
            You seem to be hands on, do the experiment.

          • Obvious

            I will probably do the experiment. It is so much easier.
            What I am attempting to give proofs of is that the special case is equivalent to the other more complex cases, due to rotational symmetry around the vertex of the three phase equation vectors.
            I’ll scrounge up the maths at some point soon. (I actually have things to do other than post here).
            If you have the time, please test the 90° reference (conduction) angle math , using vector formulas. Then do the other two 120° offset branches of the circuit to solidify the result. Use the same power, amps and resistance (pick easy values).
            Then, add 15° to each of the phase angles, using the same input values as above, and compare the results of the vector addition.
            They should be identical in net results.
            This means that you can choose a reference angle of your liking, since we are not measuring instantaneous power, but average power, with average current.
            Since the reference angle for L1 three phase is usually 30°, most people start here. With average values, you will have an average conduction angle that splits the 120° of possible conduction in half, which is 60 °. But this should be added to the 30° reference angle, resulting in 90°. Therefore the average values are the special case.

          • Obvious

            Maybe I can provide another example, to demonstrate the rotational symmetry around the vector vertex.
            You can put the current probes in any order (but not inverted) around the L1, L2, or L3 lines. This moves the (previous) reference angle 120°. You may end up with CW instead of CCW rotation, but the “start” point can be any one of the three phase leads, separated by 120°. The start point does not affect the results at all. You cannot physically connect a probe to 90°, but as long as the other two phases are separated from the reference point by 120° (plus and minus), the results will be identical for average values.

          • ivanc

            Yes, I agree, so if we reading true RMS, why you keep insisting in IL/2 instead of IL/sqrt(3) ?

          • Freethinker

            And why are you insisting on your sqrt(3) when it is not applicable? Especially as your line of reasoning is aiming to prove something based on things you have no information about, thus based on conjecture, and is out of scope from the test perspective.

            Assuming no clamps are inverted, do you accept that the PCE-830 will give the correct power reading for the input? Do you accept the temperature measurement of the reactor surface? If so, you must accept the claims made.

          • ivanc

            Freethinker, Please explain why IL/2 is the current in the ecat resistor. and also explain when the sqrt(3) factor should be used.
            I think you a good person, andI would like to understand your position. I am always ready to change my opinion y some one show me a correct argument.

          • forget about sqrt(3) as it is switched 3phase.

            the comment in the report which is only there to give a quick estimation of current to be able to neglect it later let me think that it is not at all symmetric 3phase, even switched.

            if really I1rms=i2rms=I3rms/2 you will agree that i1(t)=i2(t)=-i3(t)/2
            I don’t believe in that as it would be hard to do with the proposed triac dimmer.

            what is the most probable is that it is Iavg=average(abs(i(t)) that is measured and cited as I1=I2=I3/2

            the best hypothesis have been proposed on e-cat world (forget who, thanks to him).

            you have to know that triac normally are switched off at zerocurrent, zerovoltage.

            if you see 3 dephased sinusoid, you will find that to respectthat rue you have to trigger the triac so tha two different phases triacs are switched while the voltage are going down (assume low angle) to the same value… then you wait for the crossing between the two voltage, and you let the triacs switch off at zero current/voltage.

            you can have something that looks like what is said in the report is you switch triac 1 and 3, then later 2 and 3, wait a little, the 1 and 3 and later 2 and 3… C3 you see 2 pulse positive, then 2 negative, coming from C1 and C2 alternatively

            the way those currents adds are not sqrt3 but more like sqrt(2) because the average power is the sum of the average power of each pulse independently (none is merging with the others)

          • ivanc

            Your explanation is interesting, and yes a combination of cut waves positive and negative has to apply, but for any current to exist at least two phases have to be active at a given time, a TRIAC can not be switched off until it crosses the 0 line. and the phases are constantly a 120 degree difference.
            The only thing you need to consider is they have giving RMS reading because the meters they user are RMS.
            so no need to make analysis of angles and other artificies. is RMS so the factor to apply is sqrt(3). it is that simple.
            Please go and speak with some one who knows of electricity about this things.

          • no sqrt(3) assume balanced phases
            here it is clearly not balanced.

            about triac they can stop at zerocurrent,zerovoltage, but relative to eachothers.
            if you see the 3 sinusoid on paper it is not when it cross the baseline, but when two phase voltage cross eachothers, that you can stop (in fact they stop alone unless you retrigger them) their both triac.

        • US_Citizen71

          I just searched the report at http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf and RMS is not even written any where in the report so where are the “Reported values of the RMS current were correct” that you are referring to coming from?

          • Obvious

            The term “average” is used a few times in the report, and is critical when considering what the values imply about the circuit.
            For example: The total power in a delta circuit can be calculated using the instantaneous power measured and summed from only two corners (two wattmeter method). The third corner will have an inverse value of the sum of the other two (with the clamp the right way around), totaling zero for all three corners.
            So what does an average power reading of 479 W mean?
            Using the two corners (wattmeters) method, any combination that adds up to 479 W instantaneous power is correct. So if one corner reads 479 W, the other one is zero, (and the third corner is -479 W).
            Using 479 W at both corners is incorrect, (they would sum to 958 W) but 1/2 479 W would be OK.
            The average of both corners’ (even all three) measurements being 479 W is possible. But they cannot be 479 W each at the same time.
            Average values are time-integrated, and cannot be mixed with instantaneous values.

        • Obvious

          The key to imagining the consequences of the RMS current in the wiring is to imagine that the amp clamp is much wider. Then slide it over the entire circuit, starting at a C1 cable, over a pair of C2 cables, over two resistors, fold the third resistor in half and have one C2 cable on each side (either pointing into or out of the delta as desired, but between either the first two resistors or the final C2 cables (IE: no wires crossing)), then along the two remaining C2 cables and then the final C1 cables. The amperage measured will be the same as the first C1 cable along the entire circuit length when drawn out this way.

        • Obvious

          I have a solution that satisfies all of the electrical criteria.
          The professors’ Watt input stays.
          The C2 1/2 of C1 stays.
          The COP > 3 stays.
          There are no electrical miracles in the coils.
          The Joule heat of the cables I am sure are overestimated by 200%, but this does not have a significant effect on the overall results.
          The currents in the coils are high (~40 A), and are directly proportional to Joule heating of the cables and are the same as the currents calculated by several of us.
          The input resistor power is very high in the active run. Up to nearly 3000 W, as calculated by several of us.
          No upside down clamps.

          • DickeFix

            “The COP > 3 stays.”
            “The input resistor power is very high in the active run. Up to nearly 3000 W, as calculated by several of us.”

            You mean input power to the resistor coils? But if input power is 3000W then it is larger than the estimated output power and COP<1. Maybe I misunderstand you.

          • Obvious

            You understand correctly. COP can remain high, since the Watts reported are actually Joules. Which means time has to be considered. You can get Watts from Joules, but once the time is dropped from the equations, you can’t get time back.
            So turn the reactor off 70% of the time, and on 30% of the time, over an extended period of time and suddenly the Joules are 30% of the calculated electrical Watt values.

      • ivanc

        Exactly!!!!! I am begging for that current and voltage data!!!!!!!

    • kenko

      “I had no role in the preparation of the reactor and of the charges” Then why was it necessary for Mr. Rossi to load the charge and remove the ash? Couldn’t a technician from IH have done that?

      • badger

        It’s called pride. If Rossi has the real goods, he would get a lot of satisfaction at handling things and violating people’s expectations of scientific order, because their sense of order doesn’t care who invented it. He’s there to remind them. I would never bet against his guy, because he either has the real thing, or he only believes he does.

  • bjorn

    What happened to the “elon Musk type” of robot factory making ecats for home heating? It was supposed to be operational years ago making ecats 24/7?

    • Freethinker

      It is of course a good question.

      They robotic factories are obviously not running yet.

      Do note:

      * The situation business wise has been volatile for Rossi since the conception of his invention. He has aspired to bring a product to market and has struggled to do so, having to change his plans many times. Also, note that not every word written by Rossi in his blog, can be taken as a god given truth of what shall happen in the future. It is his vent for hopes, ideas, information etc. Now, he has the backing of Industrial Heat and indirectly Cherokee. That will help stabilize R&D and the strategy for products.

      * As there is a nuclear process going on in the core, it is likely that the certification of products to be used in homes may be difficult. By having a substantial use in industrial applications, it may be easier to achieve that. Also having a home product it must not only be safe in operation, it must also be easy to use, and very stable and robust. Likely there is needed some R&D to reach that level of a consumer product.

      So basically, when proven in industry, you will be able to put one in your home.

    • Daniel Maris

      Citation please.

    • Ophelia Rump

      It turned out that there could be no certification for home units until sufficient industrial units had demonstrated a proven safety record.
      You should really read some of the older threads on this site, you seem to be years behind in your information. You have a lot of catching up to do. Much has changed.

  • bjorn

    What happened to the “elon Musk type” of robot factory making ecats for home heating? It was supposed to be operational years ago making ecats 24/7?

    • Freethinker

      It is of course a good question.

      They robotic factories are obviously not running yet.

      Do note:

      * The situation business wise has been volatile for Rossi since the conception of his invention. He has aspired to bring a product to market and has struggled to do so, having to change his plans many times. Also, note that not every word written by Rossi in his blog, can be taken as a god given truth of what shall happen in the future. It is his vent for hopes, ideas, information etc. Now, he has the backing of Industrial Heat and indirectly Cherokee. That will help stabilize R&D and the strategy for products.

      * As there is a nuclear process going on in the core, it is likely that the certification of products to be used in homes may be difficult. By having a substantial use in industrial applications, it may be easier to achieve that. Also having a home product it must not only be safe in operation, it must also be easy to use, and very stable and robust. Likely there is needed some R&D to reach that level of a consumer product.

      So basically, when proven in industry, you will be able to put one in your home.

      • adam

        Smoke Detectors also have radioactive elements (i.e. nuclear reactions taking place) in them and there is no difficulty getting them to market.

        • Freethinker

          Yes. True, there are such detectors, and they can have some small amounts of Americium in them or such. They are passive detectors, radiating minuscule amounts of alpha and gamma, half life is some 432 years. The ECAT on the other hand is a device generating power from novel nuclear processes, heating a house or more, 24/7. Maybe there is some difference to be found between the two ? 🙂

          • US_Citizen71

            Sure there is. The Ecat emits no gammas or alphas so it is safer! : )

          • Freethinker

            😀 It may be safer. In the hand of trained people. Mr Fixer in his basement may inadvertently cause problems. So may at least authorities who worries about these things think.

          • US_Citizen71

            No worse problems than Mr. Fixer installing/repairing his own electrical breaker box, hot water heater or furnace. We live with many devices that are just an installation screw-up or two from being a bomb or fire hazard.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Mr. Fixer and Steam Boilers have a long history. Boilers are well regulated, and abundant.

          • Omega Z

            Since the days of Boiler introduction, Society has become very adverse to risks & highly regulate such devices. If Boilers were introduced today, they would be restricted to industrial use for at least a decade of safety observances.

    • Ophelia Rump

      It turned out that there could be no certification for home units until sufficient industrial units had demonstrated a proven safety record.
      You should really read some of the older threads on this site, you seem to be years behind in your information. You have a lot of catching up to do. Much has changed.

  • Rafael

    hey admin, why not you told andrea rossi about my idea? please do it because I not know how to speak to andrea rossi.

    • ecatworld

      Forgive me Rafael, but I do not remember your idea.

      By the way, you can communicate with Andrea Rossi via email at [email protected]

      • Rafael

        my idea is that of the sun being the product of a lenr, it is brilliant. I will use the email you passed to me, thanks.

      • Rafael

        it would be good if you pass my idea to andrea rossi on the journal of nuclear physics because looks like the email is an obsolete form of communication, I often get no response by email.

  • Rafael

    hey admin, why not you told andrea rossi about my idea? please do it because I not know how to speak to andrea rossi.

    • Frank Acland

      Forgive me Rafael, but I do not remember your idea.

      By the way, you can communicate with Andrea Rossi via email at [email protected]

      • Rafael

        my idea is that of the sun being the product of a lenr, it is brilliant. I will use the email you passed to me, thanks.

      • Rafael

        it would be good if you pass my idea to andrea rossi on the journal of nuclear physics because looks like the email is an obsolete form of communication, I often get no response by email.

  • Bob

    Does anyone have information on the following :

    Has arXiv ever reported why they have not posted the 2nd tip? It seems really odd that they posted the first one but not the second, without giving some explanation? Is there any info/rumor floating around on this. My understanding that arXiv is not a peer review, simply a repository for papers being submitted for review. Under what circumstances would they deny posting?

    Is there a clear status on the 1mw plant at the customer site? I.E. is it up and running and in a monitor status? Is it not running and implementation issues being resolved? I have occasionally seen a comment on this, but am not real clear if Rossi has ever stated “Yes it is running, producing heat” or “No, it is not operational yet and still being installed”. My understanding was that the original schedule was for before year’s end. While certainly, unplanned technical issues can arise, I am curious of an “official” status.

    Is there any update from the TIP author’s offer to respond to questions? It is my understanding they were accepting questions of which they would publish answers for selected submissions.

    The last is more of a request to Frank than a question. Can you (or have you), as editor of this forum, make an official inquiry from Industrial Heat, Cherokee Funds or direct to Tom Darden for a request of a statement about the Ecat project? Perhaps you could communicate with Mats Lewan and see if he would cooperate with you to submit a request for a statement or even an interview from the above as official journalists? I would think that IH or Darden would at least make some response. It would be extremely valuable and interesting.

    Thanks for all the good reporting!

    • ecatworld

      Yes, I have tried, and received no response.

      • GreenWin

        Several requests for an explanation from arXiv have been ignored. This reflects poorly on Cornell University and their “Open Publishing” claims. It is embarrassing for the University and arXiv.

        • psi2u2

          How interesting. They made a very bad decision, it would appear.

    • Fortyniner

      We’ve had a few fairly uninformative comments from Rossi which indicate that the pilot plant may have only relatively recently ( a couple of months) become operational. Rossi also admitted to some technical problems, later reported as solved, but which resulted in a monitoring ‘reset’, probably as a result of significant modifications to some part of the system. The implication of some of AR’s comments seemed to be that controlling large numbers of individual reactors was proving more problematic than expected.

      My strong impression is that Darden and Vaughn, and perhaps some other people involved, do not want any publicity at the moment, and Rossi is probably under a directive to remain circumspect. Such a situation would also cast doubt on some of his comments, which might be intended to misdirect readers. It is hard to see any advantage in publicity until they are ready to make a public splash, which probably means at least 6 month’s worth of good data (Rossi’s mention of a year is probably a red herring – at least I sincerely hope so).

      • recently he said that it would take 1-2 years

        • Daniel Maris

          1-2 years to confirm operational status and reliability seems reasonable. But it’s not reasonable to have no proper info about the pilot project for the next two years.

          If it wasn’t for the fact that IH personnel must read Rossi’s posts, such a lack of info might lead you to be sceptical about the claims Rossi makes. But I think for the time being we have to take them at face value.

    • psi2u2

      Excellent questions.

  • Bob

    Does anyone have information on the following :

    Has arXiv ever reported why they have not posted the 2nd tip? It seems really odd that they posted the first one but not the second, without giving some explanation? Is there any info/rumor floating around on this. My understanding that arXiv is not a peer review, simply a repository for papers being submitted for review. Under what circumstances would they deny posting?

    Is there a clear status on the 1mw plant at the customer site? I.E. is it up and running and in a monitor status? Is it not running and implementation issues being resolved? I have occasionally seen a comment on this, but am not real clear if Rossi has ever stated “Yes it is running, producing heat” or “No, it is not operational yet and still being installed”. My understanding was that the original schedule was for before year’s end. While certainly, unplanned technical issues can arise, I am curious of an “official” status.

    Is there any update from the TIP author’s offer to respond to questions? It is my understanding they were accepting questions of which they would publish answers for selected submissions.

    The last is more of a request to Frank than a question. Can you (or have you), as editor of this forum, make an official inquiry from Industrial Heat, Cherokee Funds or direct to Tom Darden for a request of a statement about the Ecat project? Perhaps you could communicate with Mats Lewan and see if he would cooperate with you to submit a request for a statement or even an interview from the above as official journalists? I would think that IH or Darden would at least make some response. It would be extremely valuable and interesting.

    Thanks for all the good reporting!

    • Frank Acland

      Yes, I have tried, and received no response.

      • BobBob

        Thank you for the reply.

        I guess it is not too unusual for a high level executive to not respond. However, Darden himself stated something along the lines that he was in this for “benefits to the world” and that he was not even worried if someone else was to develop this. If he really meant that, I would think he would be talking a little more about this possible world changing project to get it more public support. The silence is frustrating to us “armchair quarterbacks”!

        I was also looking very forward to the responses from the report authors. I am really hoping that they can squelch the critics innuendo of biased retorts. I have heard nothing about this recently.

        Oh well…. as I have said before… this would probably make great TV drama! Plots of intrigue, power struggles, big money, hints of possible fraud, international secrecy and a touch of mystical magic! At least acording to some skeps 🙂

        What ending will we see in this story of the century??? Will the Ecat fade into history as so many perpetual motion machines or will it explode into main stream life reality like an Apple Corporation many times larger in impact? Who knows!

        • Frank Acland

          Rossi on this topic today:

          Andrea Rossi

          November 11th, 2014 at 8:20 AM

          Boss:
          We did not make press conferences because we deem it premature. It is necessary to see in operation the 1 MW plant for a long enough time to be sure of a commercial breakthrough before it is worth to make a diffused communication. For the same reason so far our publications are limited to scientific and technological context.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          • psi2u2

            That makes total sense to me. Why are the “skeptics” so impatient?

          • Anon2012_2014

            I am not a skeptic but I am impatient. I would much prefer to move on with certainty and not open issues unresolved. I dislike uncertainty.

          • psi2u2

            Good. I didn’t mean that I did not appreciate the desire for more information. I share it.

          • psi2u2

            Understood.

        • psi2u2

          I don’t really follow the logic of your claim. Why does Dardan’s wanting to “benefit the world” preclude him being strategic about how he does it? Anyone who watches this in any serious way must realize that the regulatory issues could be very big. I see Dardan being pretty strategic. Maybe he is doing this because he really does care who brings out a working LENR device ready for the market and wants it to be his team — which, after all, would be entirely understandable. Or maybe he just feels that being lowkey right now is best for the entire LENR community.

          Regarding the report authors, I agree, I would like to hear from them in some way.

          • Omega Z

            All in perspective.
            Darden doesn’t Care if someone beats them to market.
            However, He isn’t going to give away Industrial Heats IP.

            Take Note that competition is good. Someone else may come up with a better approach then Rossi/IH. If they freely gave away the technology, these other approaches could be delayed for years.

      • GreenWin

        Several requests for an explanation from arXiv have been ignored. This reflects poorly on Cornell University and their “Open Publishing” claims. It is embarrassing for the University and arXiv.

        • psi2u2

          How interesting. They made a very bad decision, it would appear.

        • Anon2012_2014

          How do we know it was submitted to arXiv??

    • Jaja6984

      “Is there a clear status on the 1mw plant at the customer site? I.E. is it up and running and in a monitor status? Is it not running and implementation issues being resolved?”

      There is no evidence om the 1MW plant even existing as far as I know. First Rossi said it would be open to visits in a couple of months, now he says at least a year. Rossi keeps moving the goal posts. There always a moment in the future that seems to be answering all the questions but that moment never comes. That is, sorry to say, typical behaviour of a fraudster.

      • US_Citizen71

        Typical behavior of a startup as well.

        Edit: Upon further thought I’m sure you would agree that if moving the goal posts for the demonstration of a positive outcome would be the sole factor in determining fraud. Then human made hot fusion power is the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetuated on mankind.

        • We do seem to getting more than the usual number of trolls with new throwaway identities just now. Makes you wonder what it is they hope to achieve.

          Just earning a crust I suppose, but it would be interesting to know who their sponsors are.

          • GreenWin

            Some of the boys over on ECN have admitted to being in the “petroleum refining industry.” Surprise. Others like Ivy Mats are lobbyists for boondoggle “science” like hot fusion.

          • Its a relief to hear that some of them actually have a reason for posting their repetitive nonsense, other than severe mental disturbance. The thought that there might be so many psychotics on the loose would have been quite disturbing.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I would not take comfort in that. It seems to me that psychotics would be perfect candidates for the position.

          • US_Citizen71

            LOL! : D

          • Ivy Matt

            You seem to be confusing me with your hero, the late Dr. Robert Bussard, former assistant director of the Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction division of the Atomic Energy Commission and hot fusion lobbyist extraordinaire.

            The fact is, between contributions to ITER, upgrades to existing ’80s- and ’90s-era apparatuses, and numerous PhD salaries, there’s barely enough left in the budget for the annual pizza and bier fest in celebration of cold fusion’s untimely demise.

            Not that I would mind lobbying for hot fusion, but it just doesn’t pay these days, and hasn’t for some thirty years. Instead I have to depend on the home appliance and microwave popcorn industries to sponsor my online activities.

        • towerofbabel

          I would lie to see Jaja6984 acknowledge that. Is he honest, or is he a fraud?

      • psi2u2

        The evidence is that Rossi says it exists and not one of the good handful of people that would be angry if they knew that he was lying has said anything. Sorry, that’s a high testament to me, especially including the fact that Tom Dardan would probably be the first of those people. Have you done your due diligence on him yet? I recommend it.

    • We’ve had a few fairly uninformative comments from Rossi which indicate that the pilot plant may have only relatively recently ( a couple of months) become operational. Rossi also admitted to some technical problems, later reported as solved, but which resulted in a monitoring ‘reset’, probably as a result of significant modifications to some part of the system. The implication of some of AR’s comments seemed to be that controlling large numbers of individual reactors was proving more problematic than expected.

      My strong impression is that Darden and Vaughn, and perhaps some other people involved, do not want any publicity at the moment, and Rossi is probably under instructions to remain circumspect. Such a situation might also cast doubt on some of his comments, which could be intended to misdirect readers. It is hard to see any advantage in publicity until they are ready to make a public splash, which probably means at least 6 month’s worth of good data (Rossi’s mention of a year of further testing is probably a red herring – at least I sincerely hope that’s the case).

      • recently he said that it would take 1-2 years

    • psi2u2

      Excellent questions.

  • Freethinker

    Mark,

    Thomas Kaminski’s exercise is very interesting, and is a likely candidate to how the control box is feeding the ECAT. It would mean that the joule heating is slightly wrong – by a very small amount, but the joule heating as such has only a very small impact on the output power, a couple of percent, anyway.

  • Bernie777

    What a waste, where would LENR be now if a LENR like Manhantten Project was started ten years ago. (Or, maybe there is one going on and…….) Up until now Rossi has been giving us the impression research was not being detered for lack of resources, now he says:

    Andrea Rossi

    November 11th, 2014 at 9:58 AM

    Franco Sarbia:
    Well, the applications you are looking for belong to the future of the Hot Cat, possibly. Nevertheless, I must repeat that presently the focus of our R&D is restricted to the 1 MW industrial plant and the gas fueled Hot Cat.
    Warm Regards,

    • LENR would be allot further down the road if the US Patent Office were not blacklisting all LENR patent applications. With patent protection, companies could get to the marketplace faster and share their knowledge with the world openly instead of having to hide unprotectable technological secrets. If you wish to help, write your senators and congressman, the US Department of Energy ([email protected]) and the President and Vice President. If all they hear from is me, they will not bother doing anything. The wheel has to squeak to get greased.

    • NT

      A very limited R & D program by IH (in my opinion) compared to what it should be after all these years gone by and wasted, as you point out – come on patent offices “let the cat out of the bag” to help save our world!

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    What a waste, where would LENR be now if a LENR like Manhantten Project was started ten years ago. (Or, maybe there is one going on and…….) Up until now Rossi has been giving us the impression research was not being detered for lack of resources, now he says:

    Andrea Rossi

    November 11th, 2014 at 9:58 AM

    Franco Sarbia:
    Well, the applications you are looking for belong to the future of the Hot Cat, possibly. Nevertheless, I must repeat that presently the focus of our R&D is restricted to the 1 MW industrial plant and the gas fueled Hot Cat.
    Warm Regards,

    • LENR would be allot further down the road if the US Patent Office were not blacklisting all LENR patent applications. With patent protection, companies could get to the marketplace faster and share their knowledge with the world openly instead of having to hide unprotectable technological secrets. If you wish to help, write your senators and congressman, the US Department of Energy ([email protected]) and the President and Vice President. If all they hear from is me, they will not bother doing anything. The wheel has to squeak to get greased.

    • NT

      A very limited R & D program by IH (in my opinion) compared to what it should be after all these years gone by and wasted, as you point out – come on patent offices “let the cat out of the bag” to help save our world!

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.eng.usf.edu/~volinsky/LiAlH4CatalyzedByNanoparticles.pdf

    This bit of info might be of interest to those who are replicating Rossi’s reactor.

    I just ran across this paper on hydrogen storage. Adding a bit of iron oxide to lithium aluminum hydride reduces the desorption temperature of the hydride. This might explain why iron and cobalt was found in the Rossi fuel charge.

    CONCLUSIONS

    In summary, the dehydrogenation properties of LiAlH4 doped
    with Fe2O3 and nanoparticles exhibit a dramatic
    improvement compared with that of as-received LiAlH4. The
    nonisothermal hydrogen desorption analysis reveals that the
    addition of increasing amounts of Fe2O3 and Co2O3 nanoparticles
    to LiAlH4 results in a progressive reduction of the onset
    temperature of LiAlH4. The onset temperature of LiAlH4 doped
    with 7 mol % Fe2O3 and Co2O3 have reduced by as much as 97
    and 93 °C, respectively, compared with the pristine LiAlH4.

    Between various Fe2O3- and Co2O3-doped samples, the 5 mol %
    oxide-doped samples are found to be the optimal materials with
    the highest released hydrogen capacity and substantially reduced
    activation energy for the LiAlH4 dehydrogenation. Isothermal
    volumetric measurements reveal that LiAlH4 + 5 mol % Fe2O3
    and LiAlH4 + 5 mol % Co2O3 samples can release about 7.1 and
    6.9 wt % hydrogen in 70 min at 120 °C, whereas the as-received
    LiAlH4 only releases about 0.3 wt % hydrogen for the same
    temperature and time. The DSC and Kissinger desorption
    surface catalyst and are reduced to Co3O4 during the ball-milling
    process, and then translate to CoO when heated to 250 °C.

    Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the finely dispersed
    Fe oxide, Li−Fe oxide, and Co oxide may contribute to
    dehydrogenation kinetics improvement and provide a synergetic
    catalytic effect by serving as active sites for nucleation and growth
    of the dehydrogenated products, resulting in the shortening of
    the diffusion distance of the reaction ions. Meanwhile, the
    reduction of high valence transition metals during heating may
    play an important role in improving the kinetic desorption of the
    doped samples. In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that
    Fe2O3 and Co2O3 nanoparticles are promising additives for
    remarkably improving the dehydrogenation performance of
    LiAlH4, and the Fe2O3kinetics analyses reveal that the apparent activation energies of
    as-received LiAlH4 are 94.8 and 172.3 kJ/mol, while the Ea of the
    5 mol % Fe2O3-doped sample declines to 54.2 and 86.4 kJ/mol,
    resulting in declined rates of 42.8 and 50.0%, respectively, for the
    first two decomposition reactions. Furthermore, FTIR, XRD,
    and XPS demonstrate that LiAlH4 reacts with Fe2O3 during ballmilling
    by local forming of Fe oxide species with a lower
    oxidation state and a mixed Li−Fe oxide. These finely dispersed
    dehydrogenated products would contribute to the dehydrogenation
    kinetics improvement and provide a synergetic catalytic
    effect for the remarkably improved dehydrogenation kinetics of
    nanoadditive is more efficient than the Co2O3 nanoadditive.

    • Fortyniner

      Good find. Copy to the replication page?

      • Axil Axil

        I have no objections but I don’t know how?

        • pelgrim108

          Click “edit” on bottom of your comment about Fe2O3 doping ● Select and copy entire text ● goto replication thread http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/11/replication-thread/ ( link is at top of E-Catworld homepage) ● ● make a new post there by pasting the copied text

    • Sanjeev

      Was Co found in the fuel ? I can’t find it in the report.

  • Axil Axil

    http://www.eng.usf.edu/~volinsky/LiAlH4CatalyzedByNanoparticles.pdf

    Dehydrogenation Improvement of LiAlH4 Catalyzed by Fe2O3 and

    Co2O3 Nanoparticles

    This bit of info might be of interest to those who are replicating Rossi’s reactor.

    I just ran across this paper on hydrogen storage. Adding a bit of iron oxide to lithium aluminum hydride reduces the desorption temperature of the hydride. This might explain why iron and cobalt was found in the Rossi fuel charge.

    CONCLUSIONS

    In summary, the dehydrogenation properties of LiAlH4 doped
    with Fe2O3 and nanoparticles exhibit a dramatic
    improvement compared with that of as-received LiAlH4. The
    nonisothermal hydrogen desorption analysis reveals that the
    addition of increasing amounts of Fe2O3 and Co2O3 nanoparticles
    to LiAlH4 results in a progressive reduction of the onset
    temperature of LiAlH4. The onset temperature of LiAlH4 doped
    with 7 mol % Fe2O3 and Co2O3 have reduced by as much as 97
    and 93 °C, respectively, compared with the pristine LiAlH4.

    Between various Fe2O3- and Co2O3-doped samples, the 5 mol %
    oxide-doped samples are found to be the optimal materials with
    the highest released hydrogen capacity and substantially reduced
    activation energy for the LiAlH4 dehydrogenation. Isothermal
    volumetric measurements reveal that LiAlH4 + 5 mol % Fe2O3
    and LiAlH4 + 5 mol % Co2O3 samples can release about 7.1 and
    6.9 wt % hydrogen in 70 min at 120 °C, whereas the as-received
    LiAlH4 only releases about 0.3 wt % hydrogen for the same
    temperature and time. The DSC and Kissinger desorption
    surface catalyst and are reduced to Co3O4 during the ball-milling
    process, and then translate to CoO when heated to 250 °C.

    Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the finely dispersed
    Fe oxide, Li−Fe oxide, and Co oxide may contribute to
    dehydrogenation kinetics improvement and provide a synergetic
    catalytic effect by serving as active sites for nucleation and growth
    of the dehydrogenated products, resulting in the shortening of
    the diffusion distance of the reaction ions. Meanwhile, the
    reduction of high valence transition metals during heating may
    play an important role in improving the kinetic desorption of the
    doped samples. In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that
    Fe2O3 and Co2O3 nanoparticles are promising additives for
    remarkably improving the dehydrogenation performance of
    LiAlH4, and the Fe2O3kinetics analyses reveal that the apparent activation energies of
    as-received LiAlH4 are 94.8 and 172.3 kJ/mol, while the Ea of the
    5 mol % Fe2O3-doped sample declines to 54.2 and 86.4 kJ/mol,
    resulting in declined rates of 42.8 and 50.0%, respectively, for the
    first two decomposition reactions. Furthermore, FTIR, XRD,
    and XPS demonstrate that LiAlH4 reacts with Fe2O3 during ballmilling
    by local forming of Fe oxide species with a lower
    oxidation state and a mixed Li−Fe oxide. These finely dispersed
    dehydrogenated products would contribute to the dehydrogenation
    kinetics improvement and provide a synergetic catalytic
    effect for the remarkably improved dehydrogenation kinetics of
    nanoadditive is more efficient than the Co2O3 nanoadditive.

    • Good find. Copy to the replication page?

      • Axil Axil

        I have no objections but I don’t know how?

        • pelgrim108

          Click “edit” on bottom of your comment about Fe2O3 doping ● select and copy entire text ● click “save Edit” ● goto replication thread http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/11/replication-thread/ ..( link is at top of E-Catworld homepage) ● make a new post there by pasting the copied text into the “Join the discussion” box

    • Sanjeev

      Was Co found in the fuel ? I can’t find it in the report.

  • Freethinker

    Yes. True, there are such detectors, and they can have some small amounts of Americium in them or such. They are passive detectors, radiating minuscule amounts of alpha and gamma, half life is some 432 years. The ECAT on the other hand is a device generating power from novel nuclear processes, heating a house or more, 24/7. Maybe there is some difference to be found between the two ? 🙂

    • US_Citizen71

      Sure there is. The Ecat emits no gammas or alphas so it is safer! : )

      • Freethinker

        😀 It may be safer. In the hand of trained people. Mr Fixer in his basement may inadvertently cause problems. So may at least authorities who worries about these things think.

        • US_Citizen71

          No worse problems than Mr. Fixer installing/repairing his own electrical breaker box, hot water heater or furnace. We live with many devices that are just an installation screw-up or two from being a bomb or fire hazard.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Mr. Fixer and Steam Boilers have a long history. Boilers are well regulated, and abundant.

          • Omega Z

            Since the days of Boiler introduction, Society has become very adverse to risks & highly regulate such devices. If Boilers were introduced today, they would be restricted to industrial use for at least a decade of safety observances.

  • Bernie777

    I don’t believe this, in Rossi’s ten plus previous tests he has been accused of being “around” the test and doing all sorts of unethical acts to achieve LENR results, now he being accused of a “defense strategy” for NOT being “around” the tested reactor. Unbelievable!

  • US_Citizen71

    Typical behavior of a startup as well.

    • Fortyniner

      We do seem to getting more than the usual number of trolls with new throwaway identities just now. Makes you wonder what it is they hope to achieve.

      Just earning a crust I suppose.

      • GreenWin

        Some of the boys over on ECN have admitted to being in the “petroleum refining industry.” Surprise. Others like Ivy Mats are lobbyists for boondoggle “science” like hot fusion.

        • Fortyniner

          Its a relief to hear that some of them actually have a reason for posting their repetitive nonsense, other than severe mental disturbance. The thought that there might be so many psychotics on the loose would have been very disturbing.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I would not take comfort in that. It seems to me that psychotics would be perfect candidates for the position.

          • US_Citizen71

            LOL! : D

        • Ivy Matt

          You seem to be confusing me with your hero, the late Dr. Robert Bussard, former assistant director of the Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction division of the Atomic Energy Commission and hot fusion lobbyist extraordinaire.

          The fact is, between contributions to ITER, upgrades to existing ’80s- and ’90s-era apparatuses, and numerous PhD salaries, there’s barely enough left in the budget for the annual pizza and bier fest in celebration of cold fusion’s untimely demise.

          Not that I would mind lobbying for hot fusion, but it just doesn’t pay these days, and hasn’t for some thirty years. Instead I have to depend on the home appliance and microwave popcorn industries to sponsor my online activities.

  • bitplayer

    So I guess the Lugano report fits your model of “that moment never comes”, thus thoroughly validating your implication…not.

  • bitplayer

    “Why was it necessary”? Maybe it wasn’t “necessary”. Maybe it happened for several of many possible reasons. Why was it necessary that you posted your comment about Rossi’s role being “necessary”?

    • kenko

      no posts are ‘necessary’. replace it with ‘voluntarily’. or whatever makes you happy. I think you get my point.

      What are those ‘possibe’ reasons u refer to?

      • bitplayer

        It would make me happy if people did not try to generate doubts through clumsy use of implication.

        Perhaps he did not feel secure about letting *anyone* else have access to the charge material during it’s transfer from the US to Europe. And was willing to trade the obvious expected assertions of non-independence.for the additional security.

        A key sign of pathoskepticsm is attempting to identify one “inconsistency” without even acknowledging the full network of causation that the situation is embedded in.

        Sure, he could have sent the charge Fedex, for that matter, right?

        • psi2u2

          “A key sign of pathoskepticsm is attempting to identify one “inconsistency” without even acknowledging the full network of causation that the situation is embedded in.”

          Very thoughtful and useful formula.

      • Omega Z

        Considering it’s value, Wouldn’t you want to keep everyone honest.
        Rather then think Rossi was up to some mischief,
        Consider that he was there to protect his interests.
        To assure that no unauthorized people were present and accessing his IP. It is a Two Way Street.

  • bitplayer

    “Sounds to me” pretty much explains your line of posts.

  • ecatworld

    Rossi on this topic today:

    Andrea Rossi

    November 11th, 2014 at 8:20 AM

    Boss:
    We did not make press conferences because we deem it premature. It is necessary to see in operation the 1 MW plant for a long enough time to be sure of a commercial breakthrough before it is worth to make a diffused communication. For the same reason so far our publications are limited to scientific and technological context.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • psi2u2

      That makes total sense to me. Why are the “skeptics” so impatient?

  • GreenWin

    We are seeing mainstream acceptance of LENR and the Lugano test now. Here is the Swedish energy journal Energinheter publishing today:
    New Support for Nuclear Reactions at Low Energy

    http://www.energinyheter.se/2014/11/nytt-st-d-f-r-k-rnreaktioner-vid-l-g-energi

  • GreenWin

    We are seeing mainstream acceptance of LENR and the Lugano test now. Here is the Swedish energy journal Energinheter publishing today:
    New Support for Nuclear Reactions at Low Energy

    http://www.energinyheter.se/2014/11/nytt-st-d-f-r-k-rnreaktioner-vid-l-g-energi

  • Freethinker

    Ok, but how am I supposed to do that?

    You are hellbent to look at data that is irrelevant from the perspective of the test scope.

    I assume it is the joule heating you mean, so:

    PJHd/PJHa=(Id/Ia)² -> Ia ~= [2.3-2.5] * Id

    Hopefully it make sense.

    Another thing, there is stated in the report that the current could be as high as 40-50. I think they mean the RMS value per line for the active reactor. That mean a factor of 2-2.5 between dummy and the active reactor in current RMS per line. That seem to fit the Joule heat calculations well enough.

    The question is, what is the voltage? Lets take the largest power in RMS as stated in table 7, 923 W. Assume 50 A RMS per line. 923/150 = 6.15 V. Do the same with the dummy 486 W RMS and 19.7 A per line. 486/59.1=8.20 V. That means you have 25% diff there.

    Now take the case 923 vs 486. Also compare power in for dummy and active, 923/486=1.9, close to 2. Remember, P=U*I, and compare the two cases, active and dummy reactor. Note that Ua/Ud=0.75. The current quota was 2.5 in this case. 2.5*0.75=1.9. That means, that if you take into account the voltage, your discrepancy will disappear.

    Note that the OUTPUT power is estimated to 2381 W for the case of 923 W in, see table 7. 2381/486 = 4.9. Compensating for the voltage, you get 4.9/0.75 = 6.5. If you had COP 1 for the dummy, you would have to pump 6.5 more current to have COP 1 for the active reactor with the apparent power out of 2381 W if it was nothing but a heater. But it is all just conjecture.

    Please remember the scope. A black box test. Power in, temperature out, as the two observables. You are messing with the non information, where you have a computed entity, for which you have no clear picture of the circumstances, that you compare in two very much different scenarios, to conclude that these seasoned scientists and engineers, being at work for half a year with this test and analysis, were wrong in their claims.

    • Dr. Mike

      Freethinker,
      I don’t believe your calculations are correct. The load is the Inconel coils. The current to them is 9.85A for the dummy run and 2.3-2.5 times that for the active runs. These currents result in a COP of just below 1 for the first 10 days and just above 1 for the rest of the active test, assuming the Inconel heating wire resistance changed very little from the dummy run to the active runs.
      Dr. Mike

      • Freethinker

        😀
        Mike, ofcourse you don’t.

  • Gerrit

    No it cannot be coincidence. As I have explained before Industrial Heat has the proficiency to make both the reactor AND the fuel. They have performed tests themselves independently of Rossi. You cannot argue that it has been an endless lucky streak of “happy little accidents” that makes Rossi and Industrial Heat sincerely believe they have something that isn’t there.

    “Let’s have a third party evaluate our device” – “Oh look, the happy little accident happened AGAIN” – “Let’s have the third party evaluate the device once more, but more thoroughly” – “Oh look, the happy little accident happened AGAIN”

    It’s either a scam or real. As you refuse to consider the ecat being real, you now have the burden to explain the scam. How did Rossi manage to fool Industrial Heat when they are capable of making a reactor and the fuel independently of Rossi?

    “But the message from Rossi sounds to me as the base for his future defense strategy; he was not responsible in any way for the tests and hence innocent.”
    Why are you suddenly complaining that Rossi was not responsible? Just before you were complaining that Rossi was present at the test site and that he was responsible for opening the reactor. You really don’t know what you want.

  • Obvious

    If you do not use 1/2 the current of C1 for each C2, then you must compute two phases’ worth of vector cable Joule heating and sum them.
    Tripling the Joule heat calculation of one C1 and two C2 cables (as in the report) is also not correct, however.

  • US_Citizen71

    No it doesn’t say they used RMS the abbreviation does not appear any where in the report. Right or wrong they use average current to refer to the 19.7A. It doesn’t really matter, the numbers for the wiring of the Ecat itself really only allow us to look at guess at how it works. The line in power measurements tell everything that needs to be known to determine a total system COP and they give a number greater than three.

  • psi2u2

    The evidence is that Rossi says it exists and not one of the good handful of people that would be angry if they knew that he was lying has said anything. Sorry, that’s a high testament to me, especially including the fact that Tom Dardan would probably be the first of those people. Have you done your due diligence on him yet? I recommend it.

  • Freethinker

    And you are still wrong Ivan 😀

  • Obvious

    Current in one ecat resistance is 3/2 of the (equal) resistance of the total reactor. 923 W above is a sum of two corners of the delta. You must convert the delta to a wye before attempting such non-vector calculations.

  • Dr. Mike

    Ivanc,
    I believe your calculations are correct, except for the “sqrt(3)” factor. I think I’ve figured out why the authors correctly used a factor of 1/2, rather than 1/SQRT(3). If the controller just reduced the voltage to the Inconel coils, supplying full sine waves to the loads, then the “1/SQURT(3)” term would be appropriate because the RMS current supplied by the controller would be the superposition of 2 sine waves that are 120 deg out of phase. The RMS of this superposition of currents results in the “1/SQRT(3)” factor. However, the TRIAC controller supplies a chopped waveform. Since the voltage applied to the each resistive coil during the dummy run is well less than 20V (RMS) the TRIAC can be assumed to have a short duty cycle, perhaps only 30 deg or less of a 180 deg half cycle. This means that a supreposition of 2 phases that are 120 deg apart will not overlap. As long as there is no overlap, the proper factor is 1/2. (C1 lines just have twice as many identical pulses as the C2 lines.) If the wave forms did partially overlap, the factor would come out somewhere between 1/2 and 1/SQRT(3).
    I’m not sure if the chopped waveforms of 2 adjacent phases overlap during the active run, but my guess is that they do not so the 1/2 factor is also valid for the active runs. Do you agree with the assessment? I believe the authors should state in the report that they are able to say the RMS current in C! can be assumed to split into two equal RMS currents in the C2 lines because the current waveforms do not overlap. I now believe that they measured the C2 RMS currents separately and found that the C2 RMS currents did add up to the C1 RMS current. Perhaps Thomas Clarke could add to this discussion.
    Note that if you agree that the factor for the chopped waveforms is “1/2”, the you need to recalculate the coil resistance and the voltage you calculated above. Another interesting calculation is the RMS voltage supplied to each Inconel coil for the dummy run vs. the active runs using the power data from Table 7 and the current data calculated from the Joule heating data in Table 7. You will find the the supplied voltage in the dummy run was actually higher than either of the portions of the active run. It would be interesting to see the data for the potentiometer setting for the dummy and active runs. For the active run did they first start slowly turning up the potentiometer setting and then decrease the setting as the nuclear reactions started to eventually reach the first active operating point?
    Dr. Mike

  • Obvious

    I would like a good, solid conversation on this circuit, and get the bugs out of both of our versions. This is not about me attacking anyone’s idea. I want to get it right.
    I have calculated the current in the active run three different ways, and have come to the same active run current result you have calculated for each row in your spreadsheet.
    The point of testing the calculations with multiple methods is that the results should match regardless, as long the process was done correctly each way.
    So:
    Attach the amp probe around both C2 cables coming from one C1 Cable. The opposite currents will cancel from the other two phases. The RMS current of the pair of C2 cables will read the same current as the C1 cable. This means you can split the load exactly 50/50 between cables.
    We must come to agreement on this point to move ahead.
    But resistance of the two wires then must be calculated using parallel wire rules.
    The entire circuit can be analyzed like this. This is the point of doing RMS measurements. You can skip the complex offset phase relationships in a balanced load by converting the circuit to a Wye, and treating it as a DC circuit.

    • ivanc

      if you have done your second course on alternate current you will know you can not addup or take away currents with different phase.
      but the meter can. this is why you still get the same reading.
      but if you read the cables separate you will find the readings will follow the sqrt(3) rule.
      so iL cos(a)=ir1 cos(b)+ir2 cos(c)
      but to avoid phase differences and complex numbers and al the complexities of alternate current, we use RMS.
      and work as it was DC, but you have to be careful to use the equivalances correctly.
      Just google for delta 3phase sqrt(3) and you find the reasons.
      also google

      average current/voltage
      RMS
      and you find the RMS is the equivalent to DC, and average is useles in alternate systems

      • Obvious

        You cannot add or take away a phase randomly. But from the perspective of each phase relative to the other phases, the complete set of all the other possible phase angles of the complete system are equivalent in a balanced system.

        In other words, if the reference phase angle is 10° for one phase, and the other two are offset respectively plus and minus 120°, the aggregate of all the powers, currents, and voltages will be same for the entire circuit (all three phases) as when the reference phase at 11°, 25°, 90°, etc.

        This means that there are some specific reference angles which conveniently remove or cancel parts of the other phases, and these special cases can be exploited to simplify the math.

        Average values can easily throw a wrong turn into a calculation, unless there is a clear understanding of what and how the number is averaged.
        Using average values can, in effect, specify what the reference phase angle must be in some cases.

        *My electrical background is primarily in automotive electrical systems. I used to find and repair the “intractable” electrical problems from multiple car dealerships, as well as my own customers in a very busy shop. Cars, boats, RV’s, industrial machinery, even some planes. (The owners always referred to hovercraft, rather than planes…). Custom charging systems designed and assembled for multiple simultaneous voltages. (Low Riders and audio fanatics). I am also quite skilled with house electrical. (I can install four-way controlled light switches from scratch without getting confused, the first time). My house wiring has been inspected on many occasions and passed every time. My DC experience makes me very particular about good connections.

        A week ago or so I was a complete newbie at three phase power. I am coming up to speed quickly, (I think).

  • Freethinker

    And there you go. 😀

    Like I told you, it is conjectures based on information you don’t have. Your fail to realize that you cannot compare the active situation with the dummy., however “impossible” that may seem to you.

    You fail to realize that the voltage set in the active compared to the dummy, duty cycle and even how the control box is working is unknown, and outside the test scope to describe.

    You are extrapolating and guessing making your statement pure conjecture. You “find” evidence to data that can be equally well explained in other ways, albeit those explanations are not those you favor, so you stick with you special choice of conjectured explanation, that fits your believe that the ECAT does not work.

    Look at the scope, look at the data given for that within the scope, and the claims become fully acceptable.

  • Freethinker

    No ivan, you are wrong. Again.

    Doped Inconel mean that the Inconel had some other element or elements added to it in the manufacturing. It does not mean that there was alloy and the Iconel was added as an impurity to that material.

    From the perspective of the scope of the test, there is no need to know that the Inconel is doped or not. Not really. It has a some impact in computing the joule heat, but it represent a negligible part of the output computation (1-2%).

    You seem excited over this hot potato of yours. If you think Rossi is thinking of this as a hot potato, I think you are wrong. Again.

    • ivanc

      “The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it.”
      But I agree with you, the resistor should not be an issue for the ecat, specially as Rossi wants to use gas instead. so why the resistances will have to drop its value by a factor of 3.3.

  • Omega Z

    Distributor brings in a $10K Diamond to sell.
    The jeweler needs to check that it’s real.
    Jeweler goes to back room to test it. Comes back out. This is fake.

    We find ourselves in court.
    The Judge:
    Has no Idea if the Distributor brought the jeweler a fake.
    Or if the jeweler switched the real diamond for a fake in the back room.
    This is what nightmares are made of.

    The distributor & jeweler should have accompanied one another for the test. This nightmare could have been avoided.

    Rossi’s technology is priceless.
    Rossi and the testers were both present for the fuel loading & unloading for good reason. Trust, but verify.

    Oh, And the Judge being the political animal he was, Determined neither the distributor nor jeweler were intelligent enough to have possession of such precious stones & impounded them all. His wife was very happy…

    • Gerard McEk

      So judges cannot be trusted any more? :~(

  • Omega Z

    Distributor brings in a $10K Diamond to sell.
    The jeweler needs to check that it’s real.
    Jeweler goes to back room to test it. Comes back out. This is fake.

    We find ourselves in court.
    The Judge:
    Has no Idea if the Distributor brought the jeweler a fake.
    Or if the jeweler switched the real diamond for a fake in the back room.
    This is what nightmares are made of.

    The distributor & jeweler should have accompanied one another for the test. This nightmare could have been avoided.

    Rossi’s technology is priceless.
    Rossi and the testers were both present for the fuel loading & unloading for good reason. Trust, but verify.

    Oh, And the Judge being the political animal he was, Determined neither the distributor nor jeweler were intelligent enough to have possession of such precious stones & impounded them all. His wife was very happy…

    • Gerard McEk

      So judges cannot be trusted any more? :~(

  • Андрей

    Секрет в разделении изотопов никеля по кристаллах. На видео есть 6 мгнитов,которые стоят на вакуумной цистерне. Вот и весь секрет порошка!!!

    • JC

      “The secret is in the separation of isotopes of nickel crystals. The video has 6 mgnitov that stand in the vacuum tank. That’s the whole secret of the powder !!!”

      Perhaps you are correct, but commenting in english will get you a broader audience.

      Feel free to elaborate.

    • Mark Szl

      Wow! Is this a joke?

  • Rafael

    which link should I click to talk to andrea rossi on the journal of nuclear physics?

  • Rafael

    which link should I click to talk to andrea rossi on the journal of nuclear physics?

  • psi2u2

    Hi Bachole, I’m trying to remember why i posted that lol….:)…I may have misplaced the comment. Sorry for any confusion. I agree those numbers are pretty close, and of course you are correct that replication has been the LENR devil for a long time.

  • Dr. Mike

    DickeFix,
    You are correct-my error. I think ivanc is correct that the report should have used a 1/SQRT (3) factor in the currents going to the heater coils, which means they did not independently measure this current.
    Dr. Mike

    • Obvious

      Dr. Mike, please consider the reference angle of 90° for one phase. I think you will find that in that case the C2 cable current is one half of C1, for the first set of C1 and C2 cables. Follow the entire circuit to the ends of the other two C1 cables. The second set of C2 cables will not be 1/2 of the current in the first C1 cable, but these two opposite C1 cables will have 1/2 of the first C1 current.

  • Dr. Mike

    ivanc,
    I had the definition of RMS correct, but I do see where I made an error. (I was making a calculation with only a portion of the wiring diagram.) So I am back to agreeing with you that the report needs a 1/SQRT(3) factor in calculating the RMS currents in the C2 lines. This means that the C2 line currents were not independently measured!
    Dr. Mike

  • psi2u2

    Understood.

  • Obvious

    I will probably do the experiment. It is so much easier.
    What I am attempting to give proofs of is that the special case is equivalent to the other more complex cases, due to rotational symmetry around the vertex of the three phase equation vectors.
    I’ll scrounge up the maths at some point soon. (I actually have things to do other than post here).
    If you have the time, please test the 90° reference (conduction) angle math , using vector formulas. Then do the other two 120° offset branches of the circuit to solidify the result. Use the same power, amps and resistance (pick easy values).
    Then, add 15° to each of the phase angles, using the same input values as above, and compare the results of the vector addition.
    They should be identical in net results.
    This means that you can choose a reference angle of your liking, since we are not measuring instantaneous power, but average power, with average current.
    Since the reference angle for L1 three phase is usually 30°, most people start here. With average values, you will have an average conduction angle that splits the 120° of possible conduction in half, which is 60 °. But this should be added to the 30° reference angle, resulting in 90°. Therefore the average values are the special case.

    • Obvious

      Maybe I can provide another example, to demonstrate the rotational symmetry of the vector vertex.
      You can put the current probes in any order around the L1, L2, or L3 lines. This moves the reference angle 120°. You may end up with CW instead of CCW rotation, but the “start” point can be any one of the three phase leads, separated by 120°. The start point does not affect the results at all. You cannot physically connect a probe to 90°, but as long as the other two phases are separated from the reference point by 120° (plus and minus), the results will be identical for average values.

  • no sqrt(3) assume balanced phases
    here it is clearly not balanced.

    about triac they can stop at zerocurrent,zerovoltage, but relative to eachothers.
    if you see the 3 sinusoid on paper it is not when it cross the baseline, but when two phase voltage cross eachothers, that you can stop (in fact they stop alone unless you retrigger them) their both triac.

  • Obvious

    R1=(rb+rb)rc /(ra+rb+rc)
    You measure the resistance between two delta corners (x,y), so Rxy
    One resistor is directly across the two corners.
    Two resistors are across the one resistor, connected to the same corners. These are in series, then parallel with the one resistor (Draw the delta with one flat side up, this is the resistor side we are working with.
    Since all r’s are equal then
    Rxy = (r+r)r/r+r+r
    Rxy = (2r)r/3r
    Rxy= 2r/3
    3Rxy = 2r
    2/3Rxy = r or Rxy = 3/2 r

    • Obvious

      I think I also have a very simple solution for the infamous Lugano report OL PCE-830 pulse photo. The professors are sneaky…. and are protecting IH’s IP, more or less.