Experimental Evidence on Rossi Devices

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Do we take from this that he is saying he thinks the Lugano reactor to have been operated at 1400C?

I took that as an implicit admission that the reactor was not operated at 1400°C. According to the report, as soon as input power was increased to 900W, the average reactor temperature increased to 1400°C within a few minutes (see page 7). Table 6 on page 21 (and plots 6-8) is also reporting that the average temperature was about 1400°C for about 20 days. Even the abstract is referring to operating points rather than peak temperatures.

So either Rossi himself doesn't believe that at some point the reactor has been operated at 1400°C on average, or I am reading the report wrongly and that's why I asked here. To clarify, I'm aware that actual temperatures were most likely way lower than that.

@Thomas Clarke
Thank you for your clarification. Now I understand (although it seems obvious now) that the emissivity below 7.5µm does not really affect the temperature calculation of the Optris camera, and the temperature calculation is the main source of the error. And since the alumina is almost a black body above 7.5µm there are no big sources of error to be expected for that part. Emissivity below 7.5µm will affect the total radiated power, but if the temperature of the reactor is low, variations of that part of the emissivity will not "save the situation". So unless new data or theories are presented that changes one's understanding, at least I will accept that the COP of the Lugano report was not very high. Once you acccept that I can understand that the question of the isotope analysis, your point (6), becomes very hard to understand, but I don't want to discuss that because I feel I have nothing to contribute there.

Rossi has discontinued the reactor design that he supplied to the Lugano testers. He has come up with a new design called E-Cat X that operates at a higher operating temperature from the Lugano reactor. The new reactor design operates at a temperature above the melting point of nickel and probably uses pallidum powder as a nickel replacement. The mechanism of operation uses some other power production mechanism other than heat.

Rossi first called this reactor “M.me Curie”. He changed the name because its name may have been a hint at its IP content.

Rossi said:

Quote

Andrea Rossi
August 10th, 2015 at 6:16 PM
Fyodor:
I confirm: The new Hot Cat is NOT a substitute of the “Lugano” Hot Cat or of the low temperature E-Cat. It is a completely different thing. While the Hot Cat and the LT E-Cat will be destined to industrial applications, the “M.me Curie” will be destined to a completely different kind of utilization, very much popular. I will give more details, obviously, only after we will have made enough tests to see if it is reliable.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rossi also said:

Quote

The great scientist Dr Curie ( commonly referred to as “Madame Curie”) is dead not for muons, but because she manipulated radioactive atoms, without knowing their dangerousness ( due to the scarce if not zero knowledge of the effects on health at those times).

As Holmlid has shown, the use of group 14 elements in the platinum group uses UV light as a reaction promoter. At 1500C, the amount of UV black body radiation produced is substantial.

Holmlid produces muons as a result of iridium use.

Like Holmlid, this E-Ecat x reactor looks like its reaction produces particle production coming form to CPT symmetry violation where charge comes from vacuum particle condensation. If muons are coming from the E-Cat x, that reactor is producing electrons from vacuum condensation. This type of vacuum based particle condensation is different from pair production. That is to say, direct production of overunity electric power from very high heat input.

@Thomas Clarke: what about this scenario.

The experiment was deliberately designed that way. The testers actually couldn't push temperatures further during the dummy run because the internal inconel wire would indeed have melted and they knew about it.

You might have noticed that the wiring was probably changed between the dummy and the active run. I'm proposing that this was in order to use the internal ceramic tube (which is a separate element) as a high temperature, semi-conductive resitor, as if it was a Nernst glower. This would also explain the "shadows": they were due to the inactive inconel wire embedded in the finned alumina cast, the glowing internal ceramic tube used as a resistor, and not necessarily the result of anomalous heat production. I expect this would also cause issues with electrical measurements as the resistivity of semiconductive ceramics decreases significantly with temperature.

(Diagram from the [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] patent)

Rossi's low temperature reactor design is based on potassium. Rossi cannot patent potassium as a LENR fuel because it is now open source, since the Thermocore patent has expired. Rossi begin experimentation with lithium in a high temperature mode. This unpromising experimentation made Rossi sanguin at revealing the lithium design to the Lugano experimenters. Rossi was surprised at Parkhomov's replication success. Rossi has diverted replicators away from potassium toward the difficult to handle lithium through the Lugano test.

IMHO, Rossi's use of heat to produce UV is problematical. To increase efficiency, I would use a high intensity UV light source like a flash deep UV lamp or a excimer laser.

See

http://www.ushio.co.jp/en/prod…_source/lamp/excimer.html

@Thomas Clarke: I believe the wiring was physically changed between the dummy and the active run for undisclosed reasons. I won't go as far as saying that Rossi used completely different devices like Gary Wright suggested, but now that we know from the [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] patent that the E-Cat tested could be disassembled, this hypothesis might make more sense and explain how the IR emission differs between both runs. See the thermal image from page 15 and photos from page 25.

How could the same wiring produce this difference?

(enhanced)

(Source)

I have duplicated those shadow types experimentally. The upper photo, with multi coil-crossing heat bands, is a natural pattern that occurs when the coil expands but is constrained on both ends. The coil increases its radius, but the coil does not stay centred on the tube, except on average. The twist of the coil encourages the formation of a regular spiral of touching to not touching coil arc segments along the support tube. The wire glows hottest in visible light where it does not touch the tube, so conversely it is possible to make the visible light shadows hotter than the glowing stripes, but the opposite in IR. This type of coil crossing heat pattern is indicative of at least some open space in the coil area. The coil needs to be free to move, and is not perfectly heat sinked to either the support or cover tubes. (Not cemented).

That might not be too clear. If the wire is in air and glowing, it is poorly heating the ceramic. When heat sunk by contact to the ceramic, the wire cannot glow so hot, but the tube gets hotter.

@Paradigmnoia: how would this explain that in the upper photo the internal wire(s?) seemed to make way less turns around the internal core and was arranged like this:

\ \ \ \ \ \ \

While in the lower photo it seemed more densely packed and arranged like this?

/////////

As I see it, the winding is completely different, even assuming that it formed a regular touching/not touching pattern.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Interesting. Personally I've never given any credence to the "shadow" argument. No evidence for it. And you show here that as expected it is not true.

To summarize and clarify my thoughts on the matter, what I'm saying is that if the internal ceramic tube itself was used as a resistor, a "shadow" from the Inconel wire could easily appear even without internal anomalous heat production.

Quote

Re physical change of wiring inside the e-cat. I'm not found of "how could?" type arguments. There are just too many unknowns and while spiral heat gradations are interesting I don't see the discrepancy between the two pictures are indicating anything specifically.

Have a look at this:

I can count 19, possibly 22 turns on the photo (assuming shadow = wire) during the "active" run, but only 3 in the thermal image (or 9/10 if there actually were three wires, with only one showing) during the "dummy run".

@Thomas Clarke: point taken. I was looking at that as possible evidence of physical changes of wiring inside the E-Cat, but it looks like it's not enough to tell for sure. Thanks.

The upper "lights on" photo is the one to count coils with. The patent application photo is best, though. The IR image is showing an artifact caused by the coil wraps not tightly touching the tube at all points. It is hard to describe properly. The coil as a unit is wrapped around the inner tube in a corkscrew of alternating slightly loose and tight when heated. When the coil cools, the coil will shrink and grip the tube tightly.
The coil shadows are easily made. Just turning off the power will do it, but not for long. Internal heat does it best.
Regarding the orientation of the coils, watch for clues in the photos. Some of them are from behind.