Rossi’s Spectrometry Based Power Calculation at the 10/24/2017 Demonstration (Michael Lammert)

The following post has been submitted by Michael Lammert

Rossi’s Spectrometry Based Power Calculation at the 10/24/2017 Demonstration
by Michael Lammert (aka Dr. Mike)

1/9/2018
Although Andrea Rossi was unable to complete a measurement of the output power of his 3 QX devices using spectrometry in the 11/24/2017 demonstration, he did make a calculation of the output power based on spectrometry data previously observed, which is described in the video of the demonstration from about 2:25:00 to 2:28:00. At about 2:27:45 Rossi asserts that “believe me, the final result will be about 70-71W”. How did Rossi arrive at 70-71W? The 70-71W does not agree with the 61W he calculated when he mistakenly used degrees C, rather than degrees K, in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, or the ~40W when he did the calculation correctly.

I believe there was an error in his area calculation. At the 2:27:25 mark in the demonstration Rossi calculates the area (in cm^2) of the reactor as “2 times 0.08 times pi times 0.6”, whereas the actual area should have been “pi times 0.08 times 0.6” (πDL). (Note: In this calculation Rossi did specify the internal reactor diameter as 0.08cm and the length as 0.6cm, not mm.)

This means that Rossi’s calculation was off by a factor of 2, and therefore the result of his math in the presentation should have been “80-81W”, which would have been a factor of 2 greater than correct calculation of 40W. (Note: It has already been pointed out in comments on e-catworld that Rossi was neglecting that the spectrometer would have been measuring the output of 3 devices so the devices area should have been multiplied by a factor of 3.)

If the spectrometer measurement had been successful in the demonstration, would the measured spectrum have really shown an energy peak at a wavelength of 1.1μm? The answer is “no” assuming Rossi was really running 3 QX devices in parallel at 30% output power as he claimed. If it assumed that the full power temperature of reactor is 2636ºK (as claimed by Gullstrom in an earlier paper and Rossi in his JONP blog calculation), then the operating temperature of a reactor operating at 30% output power should be equal to 2636ºK divided by the 4th root of 1/0.3, or 1951ºK. The wavelength at the energy maximum on the spectrometer’s output should have been 2900μm-ºK / 1951ºK = 1.49μm (Wien’s Law). The total output power for the 3 QX devices would have been calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (assuming ɛ=1.0) as:
Pout = 3 x π x .08cm x 0.6cm x 5.67E-12W/cm^2/ºK^4 x (1951ºK)^4 = 37.2W

Does Rossi’s claim that the expected energy maximum for the spectrometer output should have been at a wavelength of 1.1μm mean that he hadn’t measured the devices with the spectrometer when operating at 30% power prior to the demonstration? The only other explanation for the claim that energy spectrum would show a peak at 1.1μm would be that the demonstration really consisted of a single device operating at full power. It’s too bad the spectrometer measurement in the demonstration didn’t work as it would have given some valuable information on how the demonstration was really run.

(Notes: 1) For those that might argue that a QX plasma temperature might really be 2636ºK when operating at 30% power, the full output power temperature would have to be 2636ºK times the 4th root of 1/0.3 or 3562ºK- way too hot! 2) An argument could be made that Rossi turned up the controller to full power for the spectrometry measurement. However, Rossi was very concerned with the QX devices over heating during this test, therefore it is unlikely that he would have made the over heating problem worse by turning up the power for this portion of the demonstration.)

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I would not exclude the possibility that AR actually meant „reduced average power”. If so, the ratio of on- and off phases could have been modified, while the reactor’s operating temperature remained the same.

    • Dr. Mike

      Since Rossi is claiming the QX device operates as a blackbody, its temperature could not remain the same without outputting the full power as calculated from the Stefan-Blotzmann equation. If device was only operating at 30% power, the device temperature had to drop in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Also the device had to reach a steady state temperature, or it would have been impossible to attempt to take a temperature measurement with the spectrometer. The output of the spectrometer would have been varying continuously as the device was heated, then cooled.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        The same temperature would imply the same power, but not necessarily the same average power. If I remember correctly, the plasma was periodically switched on and off. Shortening the active phases and/or extending the breaks would reduce the average power without the need for lowering the operating temperature.

        Reaching the maximum temperature quickly should be no problem, given the very low thermal mass. I think that the spectrometer would always show the same peak, even with interrupted input.

        • Dr. Mike

          I understand your argument about average power with on-off cycling. However, if the devices were cycled on and off during the spectrometer measurement two things would have happened. First, the output of the spectrometer would have varied with the on-off cycles. Second, Rossi would have had to account for the on-off cycling in his power calculation. (And of course, he should have accounted for there being 3 parallel QX devices if the demonstration really was run with 3 QX devices at 30% power, and not a single device at full power.) Do you think Rossi ran the QX devices continuously at full power for the spectrometry measurement when he seemed very concerned about over heating the devices in the calorimetry portion of the test? Perhaps the QX devices can only be operated at full output power unless they are cycled on and off. If power is only controlled by on-off cycling, then the QX devices were really run at 3/7 power (43%) during the calorimetry measurements.

  • Gerard McEk

    Hi Michael, I appriciate you checking this part of the test, but I found the heating of water to determine the output power far more convincing.
    The input power measurement was not convincing at all. There was no proof that the heat dissipated in a 1 ohm resistance is equal to the input power of the QX reactor, other that that ‘Andrea says so’. What is the purpose of a test when an important part is done in a wrong way? I am sure that every electrical engineer will agree with me, and also many others.
    I still cannot understand that some people are saying to Andrea that they found the demonstration convincing.

    • Mylan

      I’m pretty sure Rossi’s blog is not at all an open forum. The idea that Rossi is posting comments and questions under different names himself has come up, and it seems the only logical explanation for many posts.

      • Gerard McEk

        Maybe, but I think that most of these ‘convinced’ people are non technical believers that Andrea is saying the truth. I still think Andrea is probably right, but he hasn’t proven it yet. Maybe we have to wait untill he puts the QX on the market and hear that customers are satisfied.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi wasn’t concerned about the public demo being all conclusive. Just Ask Matts. Rossi didn’t want to do as much as he did. I’m certain the non public tests we are not privy are much detailed and answered many of the questions we have.

          Seriously, I’m a Rossi supporter and I wouldn’t invest in his product without much much much more info and details then provided by the Demo. Also, while I believe Rossi has pretty much as claimed, It’s still to be determined if it can transition to the real world. Many products never make it beyond R&D for technical and mass manufacturing issues.

          Another perspective. It still isn’t in Rossi’s best interest to date to give a 100% conclusive public test/demo. Aside from the conspiracy possibilities some may spout, It would attract serious interests of the very people Rossi will have to ultimately contend with. Big Corporate money. Something he wants to avoid until he is ready to go to market. Until then,

          • Dr. Mike

            I think you have a good point that Rossi still doesn’t want to draw to much attention to his QX device that a good demonstration might have brought. However, if Rossi really thinks he can achieve “massive production” by the end of 2018, it seems that he would be doing much more marketing at this time to sell that “massive production”. Does Rossi believe that the product will sell itself as soon as it is produced? How many 1MW plants was he able to sell with the old technology? It was so hard to find a single customer to use the steam from the Miami 1MW plant that Rossi had to invent a fictional company to do so. Since heat really isn’t a universal product (compared to electricity) it seems that now is the time to demonstrate the capabilities of the QX devices (if he can) so that he will draw the attention of potential customers that might explain in what form they need their heat.

          • LarryJ

            If he builds it they will come

          • Dr. Mike

            He supposedly built a 1MW heat source with the old e-cat technology and they did not come. Perhaps if he builds it to be reliable, they will come?

          • LarryJ

            That was a prototype. This is a product. Apples and oranges.

          • Dr. Mike

            I think the key factor missing in any of Rossi’s limited discussion of his business plan is that he totally leaves out a “prototype phase” as part of a plan. It is not reasonable to promise to deliver a final product without having a thorough investigation of the reliability of a prototype as part of to plan to get that product to market, especially when that product is based on a completely new technology.

          • Dr. Mike

            Of course, today Rossi starts talking about prototypes! This certainly improves his believability.

          • Vinney

            The price of the produced heat will be so small, that companies will have an Ecat QX reactor on site to cover their industrial heat requirements in lieu of more expensive sources, as the cost of each BTU is many times lower.
            If Rossi also does some carbon (CO2 emissions) footprint calculations on all his processes, this would be a further selling point, as the industrial clients would be investing in an environmentally friendly source. Independent (select highly scientific and open minded) green energy certification organizations could be bought in to evaluate the first prototypes. Using several green certifiers each examining different process/es can help protect his ‘industrial secrets’ and gains the respect of environmental certifiers.
            The public appreciates these assessments, especially the ‘hard’ green economics facts that even the solar (battery) and wind energy companies do not fully disclose.

          • Omega Z

            I have doubts that Rossi can achieve massive production by the end of 2018, but it’s quite possible he can have a couple pilot plants in operation by then. If all goes well ??, then 2019 may see mass production. Keep in mind that even Rossi leaves caveats as to the timeline.

            Finding a customer isn’t that hard at all. Finding a customer that will agree to certain restrictions is a different issue. However, once proven out in pilot plants, customers will quickly overwhelm any initial production capacity Rossi and partners can supply.

            –>”Since heat really isn’t a universal product (compared to electricity)”

            If you have high temp heat, you can cover all your energy needs including production of electricity. Can’t get anymore universal then that. And the market for heat is huge even excluding electricity production.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree that there is a large market for heat. However, I think every user will want a different module design to have his heat supplied. If Rossi was delivering electricity, then all users would need to determine is how many of the units they would need to meet their demand.
            I certainly agree that “Rossi leaves caveats as to the future”. My guess is we will be hearing those same caveats next year.

    • Dr. Mike

      I agree with all of your comments. We are supposed to believe Rossi’s conclusions that he properly set an upper limit to the input power (he clearly did not measure device input power) with his measurements when what he told us about the failed spectrometry measurements was wrong. Not very convincing!

  • Sean

    What we need for a demonstration of useful work. Not just these ongoing measurements and calculations, but actual dynamic apparatus showing useful work produced by LENR. I occasionally light the small alcohol wick under the expansion chamber of my little Stirling engine. My eyes can now perceive real work done by heat as the flywheel spins at great speed and driving a small generator powering lights. My fingers can feel force of resistance when touching the flywheel. Lets hope we can see something that will impress us all who follow LENR in 2018.

    • Dr. Mike

      It is actually quite simple to measure input electrical power to a system and the heat output from that system. Since heat output will be Rossi’s first product, it is important that these simple measurements can be made to evaluate the initial product. I agree that it would be more impressive to see a Stirling engine engine being driven by LENR devices that use only a small electrical input.

    • Alan DeAngelis
      • Sean

        Thanks Alan, that’s what we want, an LENR powered jet engine on the 6 o’clock news. Now Lady’s an gentlemen please put on your ear defenders as we change LENR into raw power. You will notice that when started, pure air is heated by the LENR reactor behind the compressor stage. After which it drives the turbine. As an added bonus, we have added a more efficient afterburner using liquid hydrogen which will burn in the oxygen rich exhaust. Space plane perhaps? Part of the LENR wishlist for 2018.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Couple
    the QX with the JTEC. (4.44 min in the video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6FUk2E9-68

    • Dr. Mike

      The JTEC looks like a good match for the temperatures of the QX.

    • Omega Z

      This has been brought to Rossi attention several times over the last few years. However, I don’t think the JTEC is ready for the task at this time. If LJ can achieve his goals in the future, you could see 60% conversion efficiency. It’s been mentioned that being solid state, it may even be possible to meet and exceed the theoretical Carnot efficiency limits.