QuoteIt is not clear from the text of the report how they found input energy from the PCE-830 (they should use kWh, but maybe they did not). The setup was Rossi's in his factory and it is not clear what is the connection. There are easy circuits that show much lower power measured than actually goes to the reactor.
The obvious thing to do, given all that was written about uncertainties in earlier experiments, would have been to provide their own power input wiring and measuring equipment and to place it in series with Rossi's input wiring. The equipment should have included a broadband modern computerized oscilloscope. None of that was done. Instead, they used Rossi's power source and Rossi's wiring and Rossi's previously used method of measurement. If that isn't begging to be scammed, I don't know what is. Certainly it makes the experiment anything but "indipendent".
150W excess heat inside tube, showing coil shadows. Note crack forming in the tube next to the TC. The tube failed moments later.
Clearly any powerful exothermic reaction needs to be spread evenly over the tube (in time also), or structural failure is likely due to thermal stresses.
150W excess heat inside tube, showing coil shadows. Note crack forming in the tube next to the TC. The tube failed moments later.
Clearly any powerful exothermic reaction needs to be spread evenly over the tube (in time also), or structural failure is…
Hello @Paradigmnoia, Could you explain a little more about this picture? What is the mix? Type of tube? How hid you made your reactor?
Sorry. Typed that in a rush.
It is simulated excess heat, using a 150 W light bulb.
For what it is worth, a 500 W bulb used prior to this characterization experiment destroyed the tube almost instantly, then the bulb exploded once it exceeded 800 C, and was barely contained by the coil windings holding most of the tube fragments loosely together. From the point the bulb was turned on, to total destruction in this earlier test, was only about 10 seconds.
Both the 500 and 150 W bulbs operated at almost exactly 600 C in the open air.
In both tests the outer coil was heated to 450 C before powering up the internal heat source.
Additionally, there is a result from these simulated excess heat experiments that might need some extra work to understand better.
When the outer surface was heated to, for example 500 C, and then the inner heat slowly ramped up in steps, there was no increase in the outer temperature until the inner heater (bulb) was heated enough to exceed the internal temperature reached by heating the outer coil. Perhaps a calorimeter would catch the extra power, but the external temperature was not registering this power increase as an independent increase in temperature. This makes some sense, in that if the inner heater is making less heat than the heat already there, It cannot add more heat. However, it seems odd that the parallel heat does not add anything. Where does the power go?
Here's an image from the MFMP Dogbone test replicating the physical structure of the Lugano reactor. Heat is being provided by an inner coil, replacing the fuel core. The shadow of the non-powered outer coil winding is clearly visible. What's interesting is that both sides of the outer coil are visible as shadows. Can you explain what caused this?
We concluded that the images from the Lugano report did indeed signify a source of visible light (and possibly heat) originating from inside the heater coil, brighter than the coil itself.
Thanks for that image. That outer coil was imbedded in the outer finned cast material in this version, or is this one of the GS versions?
I can't think of any good explanation for the opposite side coil shadows to show up on the front. If the outer coil is separated from the outer tube by an air gap, Glow Stick style, there may be a way, but it seems unlikely... Reflection from the inside of the outer tube?
Interestingly, the strange backside coil shadows also cause the appearance of the low angle coil loop-crossing heat/light bands. I don't suppose there is an IR image from this test?
@Paradigmnoia.
The cell in the image was the Dogbone replica with the outer coil cast into the finned body. The core was a 3/8" ID alumina tube into which I inserted a finely wound Kanthal heater coil. The core power as shown on the PCE830 display was 650 watts at the time of the photo.
The best explanation I've come up with for the back-side shadowing is that the wire of the outer winding has lower thermal emissivity than the cast body. Thus at identical temperature, it emits less visible light than the surrounding ceramic. Admittedly far-fetched but the best I could think of.
It's like the whole thing is transparent (translucent), inner tube and all, except the inner and outer heater coils.
To visible light anyway.
Neat.
Page 25 of the Lugano report, captions for figures 12a and 12b, briefly discuss the inner glow and coil shadows.
The transparency of the MFMP test device (image above) is unique in that it intentionally has an inner incandescent heat source and yet the outer coil on the backside is visible from the front, in addition to the the forward facing part of the outer coil.
edit: If the front coils visible through the outer alumina are shadows, then what are the back coils?
Does alumina become increasingly transparent to visible light with an increase in temperature? (Up to the point of full incandescence). I have not seen this before. The lack of an air gap between the outer coil and the outer cover in the pictured MFMP device may have something to do with it in that case.
The shadow effect hasn't been visible in any of the Glowstick tests. However, I did notice that if the coil expands so that there is contact with the outer cover at some spots, those places show a darker color but higher spot temperature (measured with an IR device), compared to nearby spots. I attribute that to the wire actually being cooler at those spots due to thermal conduction into the cover. The cover material gets hotter there as a result.
@magicsound,
That is consistent with my tests without a cover tube also. In that case the inner (only) tube is hotter where the coil touches, but glows more in visible light both due to lower conduction from that part of the coil wire that does not make good physical contact, allowing increased incandescence of the hotter wire and also reflecting that light from the tube below where the wire does not make good contact. IR spot tests on the free floating parts of the wire are rather difficult to get, due to the small target size. Instead I moved a thermocouple along the inside edge of the tube to test the brighter and darker spots.
Regarding the Ferrara tests, I have read the Ericsson&Pomp criticism and I think they have valid points, although I don't found any single point particularly severe. I found the heat diffusion simulation of the cylinder interesting, and they seem able to prove that some statements in the Ferrara report are wrong.
About the actual report It was said here earlier:
I guess that in this case the output power measurements, while flakey +/- 30% or so, are OK. The input power measurements however are much less certain.
I tried to focus on the input power measurements when reading. To me it did not look that complicated. It looked like they hooked up a voltage probe and a clamp ampere meter on each of the input leads, and then let the PCE-830 work out the what power was supplied to the device. I found this picture on the web:
http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com…2014/11/Fig7_Patent_3.jpg
It should then be straight forward to work out if the device is a pure resistor or seemingly generates excess heat.
For the March test (HT2) they say they have a control box between the PCE-830 and the reactor. The power consumption of the control box affects the result somewhat but can not as I see it nullify the result.
To be honest I can have misunderstood a lot of things here but I think things look a lot better than the Lugano test, at least if you consider the report only.
Regarding power/integrated energy of the PCE-830, the following quote on page 6 implies integrated energy:
"By reading the images reproducing the PCE-830's LCD display at regular intervals, it was possible to make a note of the number of kWh absorbed by the resistor coils. Subsequently, the E-Cat HT's average hourly power consumption was calculated, and determined to be = 360 W."
Others places refer to instantaneous power. My guess it that you obtain both on the display.
(
(2) double wires inside one sheath going to reactor.
Possible, I suppose. Don't know if it is compatible with the dummy run though. Maybe the double wires must have had been removed by then?
@Thomas Clarke
Despite uncertainties I think I will count the Ferrara test as a positive datapoint, since there are as far as I can see no apparent signs of fraud, and to me the mesaurements of input and output power looks reasonable (and in fact Ericsson&Pomp do not criticize the electrical input power measurement as such). If you assume those to be correct, basically that is all you need to reach a positive conclusion. However I still think that Lugano was a null result, which was very interesting to learn and I thank you for bringing that forward.
Display MoreTo Thomas about my computation, I follow your reasoning and mostly agree.
I used an approximation like Raley jeans, and I don't consider I know the temperature at al.
I just know the reading of the IR Cam, which is related to temperature via emissivity.
This is old computation, and given the current news, that ferrara and isotopic shift are good, I have more to do than dig old stories.
My way is to use ratio, and avoid assumptions and absolute value for emissivity or temperature.
what I found is that the ratio of IR cam measurement between 450-800-900W, observing the calibration done at 450W was correct, but the emissivity was unknown, imply a COP>>1 unless emissivity grow hugely from 450 to 900W, which is absurd for alumina.
my bet is that you don't take correctly the calibration with TC and known emissivity dots at 450W.
You method is too complex for me.
Great, very valuable information.
