Experimental Evidence on Rossi Devices

    Quote

    It seems that, unless there is a mistake in these plots (which should be checked) that the reactor shouldn't be glowing any stronger than a 60 W ordinary incandescent bulb at the maximum temperature, and would be quite a bit dimmer at 1260°C.


    Antoine - this comparison is wrong. Lumens measure total light output weighted by eye sensitivity. Perceived brightness of emitter must be lumens divided by surface area. The issue for what it looks like, in any case, is color. 1400 (the claimed temp) and 780 (the real temp) look very different. FWIW, the reactor is of course dimmer than a 60W bulb!

    Shane,


    Quote

    Lewan did say the fuel ash composition would: "be extremely difficult to copy".


    [ad hom - WARNING - do not read if you want dispassionate coverage]Mats has the technical credibility on LENR of a gnat [/ad hom]


    Specifically, it is easy to buy 99% 62Ni and mix up a fuel powder from that. Neither Mats nor the testers are qualified to judge how easily the fuel, or fuel+reactor, could have been switched - we are all easily tricked whether by deliberate actions of a magician or innocent mistake. The fuel samples were not independent and therefore show nothing scientific.


    Further - it looks like Mats is not publicly admitting the bad calculation mistake made by the Lugano testers. There was not "improper calibration" there was NO calibration of the active data combined with fudging ("altering") the "not a control but lets do it to check our calculations are correct" data.


    There is a difference between subtle unprovable error and results so massaged that no-one competent could believe them for a second.

    Antoine10FF,


    You have made nice diagrams, thanks. One problem trying to judge the light emission from a photograph is that a camera (normally) has automatic exposure control. If you take a picture in an otherwise dark room the dogbone would be shining brightly but in sunshine you could not see it glow at all. The actual picture is somewhere in between.

    Just being a student I have not yet managed to explore all threads to find out if there is a suitable one for the thing that I want to say. As soon as not commented on the threads seem to become a layer of sediment. And why is there no search function here, I miss that! Perhaps a Moderator or an Administrator could be very kind and give me a short lesson?


    Anyhow, if you care to read another version of An Impossible Invention, but written with a much sharper pencil you can take a trip to here: http://freeenergyscams.com/and…-and-industrial-heat-llc/


    At least as spicy as Mild Yoghurt, isn't it?

    Why did they renounce to use conventional calorimetry? 3kW thermal heat production lays within a range where conventional heat-exchanger work very well. It should be easy to put an e-cat into a closed box (together with heat exchangers) and just watch a thermometer on the front of a large water-container? Also a conventional electricity meter would be more exact, than any fancy calculations of resistance etc..
    Besides all experimental trap holes people now discuss for years, we would see a usable system that could work anywhere we need heat.

    Quote

    Why did they renounce to use conventional calorimetry?


    The test group did that because the Circus Doctor ordered what methods and equipment to use.
    "Play it my way or not at all." Not at all would have been much wiser.


    And no, I don't think the lengthy discussions have delayed the market introduction of the technological fruits of The Rossi Effect. Adding a few years to eternity does not make it take longer.

    Quote from Antoine10FF

    It seems that, unless there is a mistake in these plots (which should be checked) that the reactor shouldn't be glowing any stronger than a 60 W ordinary incandescent bulb at the maximum temperature, and would be quite a bit dimmer at 1260°C.


    This result seems counterintuitive to me. I would expect the color temperature and brightness to increase monotonically with the radiated power. Have you pinpointed in your calculation what is reducing the brightness at higher temperatures?


    Here is a calibration run by Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, where the resistance heater is at 870 C. Here is an MFMP calibration at 720 C, which is brighter than what is shown in Figure 12b in the Lugano report. I vaguely recall photos of calibration runs by MFMP that demonstrate that a resistance heater in the dogbone configuration with alumina on the outside and so on is extremely white in the 1260 C range.

    • Official Post
    Quote from H-G Branzell

    Anyhow, if you care to read another version of An Impossible Invention, but written with a much sharper pencil you can take a trip to here: freeenergyscams.com/andrea-ros…-and-industrial-heat-llc/



    That is Gary Wright's site. He used to call it "shutRossidown". Even with the new name, seems it is still all about getting Rossi. Kind of wacky, but he does dig deep, real deep. Uses that sharp pen as you say. He has yet to find a smoking gun, but provides plenty of smoke.


    First I've heard of this new (1/11/2016) Rossi patent rejection.

    Hej H-G,


    About the joule heating issue, perhaps you are going too fast into the details? If we look at Table 7 in the Lugano report we can see the power consumption of the reactor in column two. I assume that has been measured with the PCE-830 power analyser by connecting the current and voltage probes to the outputs from the control box. Then we have the joule heating in column 7. You say that has been calculated with help of the current readings from the PCE-830, and the resistance values from the dummy run. Then we see that the dummy run, column 7 and column 2 together does not give a coherent picture. Therefore we assume there is something wrong with column 2. It is this final conclusion that I don't understand (or seem very likely given the measurement setup).

    Thomas:

    Quote

    Antoine - are you arguing that reactor was outputting 3kW? It is not possible, given the low temperature.


    If the reactor was outputting the bulk of its heat in the wide range of IR outside of that detected by the Optris camera, then it could have been easily been outputting 3kW, or even much more. The temperature measured by the camera is not necessarily effective at measuring the total output, although it could be. But this requires that the alumina cylinder visible to the IR camera acts like a glowing pure alumina cylinder, not a device of unknown composition and complex construction, with several metals and gasses inside doing who-knows-what.

    Quote

    That was me, not Antoine. No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that nothing can be concluded from the color temperature in the photos in the Lugano report, since we don't know when they were taken.


    That is true. However - a more subtle point. If Rossi had ever correctly measured the temperature of alumina tubes heated he would be able to distinguish between 1400C and 780C. So, since he was in attendance for the last few days of the test, he would have known the testers were not testing at their claimed temperature.

    Quote

    If the reactor was outputting the bulk of its heat in the wide range of IR outside of that detected by the Optris camera, then it could have been easily been outputting 3kW, or even much more. The temperature measured by the camera is not necessarily effective at measuring the total output, although it could be. But this requires that the alumina cylinder visible to the IR camera acts like a glowing pure alumina cylinder, not a device of unknown composition and complex construction, with several metals and gasses inside doing who-knows-what.


    Perhaps you'd like to give evidence for these assertions, which are not true.


    At 7.5-13um alumina is opaque with emissivity 1 therefore its radiation is well understood from the Planck curve. That nails down the temperature. At that temperature, even with a reactor emissivity of 1 (the highest possible) the output is << 3kW. In fact the total emissivity is around 0.5 though there is some uncertainly.


    Tom

    Quote

    At the :56 minute mark of Lewans Webinar the other day he spoke of Lugano. He said: "measurements on methods not calibrated properly" or something like that. Lewan knows Essen (one of the testers) well... having introduced him to Rossi, so Lugano is officially dead it seems.


    If lack of calibration kills an experiment or a demo, ALL of Rossi's experiments and demos are dead because NONE had proper calibration. And that was mainly the fault of Kullander, Essen, Levi, Lewan and the professorial blind mice, any of which could have REQUIRED Rossi to calibrate properly before they would participate in a Rossifiction experiment.


    And remember that a thermal camera experiment at high temperature is not desired and is not needed to prove that Rossi has cold fusion/LENR. A much better method would have been to use a steam temperature ecat which supposedly had a vastly better power output and COP, as per Levi in February 2011. Never forget these claims: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece and note that the article is by Lewan! Talk about blind mouseneering! Of course that stupendous test result that Levi got was never confirmed, calibrated, repeated or replicated. And when Krivit asked for the actual data sheets from the experiment, it turned out that the dog ate Levi's homework! Wow.


    As for the Ferrara (sp?) and Lugano experiments, no proper isolation was made of the input power -- for all we know it could have used trick wiring (the cheese video trick). Clamp on ammeters are not needed and are very easily fooled. And of course, the easiest way to get 99% of a particular nickel isotope in "ash" is to place it in manually from a purchased source, as Rossi without a doubt, did. The blind mice didn't know their ash from a hole in the ground, so to speak.


    Why are we rehashing such terribly designed, pisspoor implemented, and worthless experiments? IMO, Rossi designed and tested the whole hot cat experiment only for the purpose of deception and being that the blind mice professors were so incompetent, it worked. By the way, why don't they reply to the critiques? Pomp, Branzell and of course, Clarke's critiques. And little old me. The professors are as quiet as... well... mice!

    Quote

    About the joule heating issue, perhaps you are going too fast into the details? If we look at Table 7 in the Lugano report we can see the power consumption of the reactor in column two. I assume that has been measured with the PCE-830 power analyser by connecting the current and voltage probes to the outputs from the control box. Then we have the joule heating in column 7. You say that has been calculated with help of the current readings from the PCE-830, and the resistance values from the dummy run. Then we see that the dummy run, column 7 and column 2 together does not give a coherent picture. Therefore we assume there is something wrong with column 2. It is this final conclusion that I don't understand (or seem very likely given the measurement setup).


    the Joule heating data is indicative of some change in setup between dummy and active tests. It is bad methodology since no such change is contained in the writeup. Possible changes that would (effectively) provide the data:


    (1) change in heater resistivity with power. this is unbelievable, because you'd need a X3 change between dummy and active temps, with <1% change between the two different active temps. Also we are told the heater wire is Inconel which does not exhibit such change.


    (2) clamp reversal, in active test, which would make apparent power 1/3 of real. It would be obvious to any skilled person checking the PCE-850 - but it is not clear who in the testers was so skilled and when they were present.


    (3) change in connection between Delta (as stated in the report) and Wye. This would have no direct effect on results, and the testers, being sloppy, might have thought they did not need to record this. It could be done easily because the reactor needed to be removed and then replaced with fuel.


    (X) There is a possible indirect effect from the Delta/Wye swap (3) that could boost apparent COP in the active tests relative to the dummy one - essentially the higher currents from the delta configuration would make current clamp saturation more likely. the high crest factor means that such saturation is possible if 100A clamps were used, if 1000A are used there would be no such saturation. I don't think, at the relatively low powers used here - much lower than nominal - that such an effect is likely, but it is worth noting as a possibility.


    Any of (1), (2) or (3) would resolve the electrical anomaly. (1) I view as highly unlikley (2) and (3) are both possible. However (3) is compatible with the other measurements. (2) would require a high energy density (nuclear? LOL) energy sink in the reactor to reduce the COP to well below 1.


    So, for me it is obviously (3).

    Quote

    If lack of calibration kills an experiment or a demo, ALL of Rossi's experiments and demos are dead because NONE had proper calibration. And that was mainly the fault of Kullander, Essen, Levi, Lewan and the professorial blind mice, any of which could have REQUIRED Rossi to calibrate properly before they would participate in a Rossifiction experiment.


    That is true - but it has been true for a long time, as has the fact that Essen, Levi, Lewan don't remark on the fact. I guess we should see this comment from Lewan as progress, except that he is calling "gross miscalculation of COP by a factor of three" lack of calibration.

    I think, Thomas, that the gross miscalculation would have been very obvious with a properly performed calibration -- assuming Rossi had not rigged the input power settings and measurements. Nothing was done to prevent that. Far as I know, the professors used Rossi's wiring.

    I pointed my laser pointer from my IR gun at a 2.5 mm thick pure alumina slab. The red laser spot is visible on the opposite side, although weakly. That means that with a power of < 5 mW, 630 to 670 nm light can easily pass through alumina. This is close to a strong lithium spectral line. Which could mean that if the lithium inside were to produce strong coherent light at this wavelength, it would go mostly unnoticed by the Optris camera using a 750 to 1300 nm band, and therefore it would go unmeasured. The other lithium spectral lines are much shorter in wavelength, and would definitely not be seen by that Optris. This just by way of example.
    The temperature of the alumina is related to how poor the alumina transmits heat, not how much energy is contained in the device at any given moment.
    Therefor I posit that the temperature that Thomas has calculated is the lower bound.

    Paradigmnoia,


    I agree with you that a heat source internal to the alumnina tube can transmit heat through the alumina without the optris camera detecting it (which btw starts at 7.5 micron, not 750nm). That is in analogy with a traditional light bulb where the filament transmits heat through the glass bulb. If you meausre with a heat camera on the light bulb you will get the temperature of the glass bulb, which is not directly related to the heat produced by the filament. Thomas' analysis I believe is correct for the alumina tube temperature. However the Lugano report is not correct on that point (which also gives an error in the subsequent radiated power calculation). I personally would find it a weird coincidence if the device anyway, undetected, produced excess heat, but I guess that in principle you cannot rule that out.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.