Cutting Through the Fog Surrounding the Rossi/IH Dispute (Josh G)

    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    Figure 5 in the Lugano report shows (on the left side of the PC830 display) the waveforms of TWO phases.



    :) You are really Joking !!!! download the report and see the picture is just one ( I3).


    and Mr. Clarke PLEASE read the report ad see the pictures as I have done also ! From the photo of the setup one can see that the clamps used were ( most probably ) the 6801 model ( max 100 A) the other clamps have a different shape.
    And again please avoid also any fictional hypothesis.

    Prof Levi looks quite jolly in the Krivit steam video. (he's the one holding the black t-shirt). I've never been able to reconcile the steam velocity from the documentary but don't want to open old wounds. Rossi apparently wasn't making as much fog back then.

    Quote from Tom Paulsen

    Figure 5 in the Lugano report shows (on the left side of the PC830 display) the waveforms of TWO phases.


    Please read again and don't fly over the letters, words..etc. This thread is full of second hand coments, may be You all have only a short version (abstract) of the original Lugano Report.


    Just some knowledge gained when effectivly reading the original report.


    Page 3 of Lugano report:


    Three braided high-temperature grade Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors
    wound in parallel non-overlapping coils inside the reactor....


    The resistors and the copper cables of the three-phase power supply are connected outside the caps, in the
    classic delta configuration. For 50 cm from the reactor, the power cables are contained in hollow alumina
    rods (three per side), 3 cm in diameter (Figure 2). The purpose of the rods is to insulate the cables and
    protect the connections.


    p. 4
    The E-Cat's control apparatus consists of a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmable
    microcontroller; its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W. The regulator is driven by a
    potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e. the current through the resistor coils, normally 40-50
    Amps), and by the temperature read by the reactor's thermocouple.

    @randombit0
    Of course it has something to do with the controller. The controller must deliver the current. If it cannot, then there is no way to overload the amp clamps. As it is, the biggest Compact Fusion three phase controller there is can barely make 200 Amp peaks.


    Too bad there is no way to be sure what amperage the Lugano controller actually was. The 160A rated version has four fans, compared to two in the others. I can only see two fan outlets in the image, but I don't know where the other two fans are, or if they can been seen in the one image we have of the controller.


    I have already wound up a 0.4 ohm Lugano coil, (one phase) with even bigger diameter wire than suggested by IH in their patent application. Somewhere in this forum you can find it. (Thanks, IH, for the help).


    I do like the idea of switching the PCE to 10A clamp when it uses a 100A clamp though. That is a good idea worth investigating.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Too bad there is no way to be sure what amperage the Lugano controller actually was. The 160A rated version has four fans, compared to two in the others. I can only see two fan outlets in the image, but I don't know where the other two fans are, or if they can been seen in the one image we have of the controller.



    Here the cutrrent from the dummy run!!


    We may calculate the dissipated heat to the limited extent of the dummy reactor: the results relevant to the E- Cat will be given in Table 7, due to the fact that the average current values changed from day to day.
    Measurements performed during the dummy run with the PCE and ammeter clamps allowed us to measure an average current, for each of the three C1 cables, of I1 = 19.7A, and, for each C2 cable, a current of I1 / 2 = I2 = 9.85 A. The evaluation of heat dissipated by the first circuit is:

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Of course it has something to do with the controller.


    @paradigmoia
    OMG..... IF we have a current of let'say 40-50 A and set the clamps to a 10A full scale we will obtian an OWL ! Note that in fat the same figures are cited as "normal" values of current through the coils,
    The OWL we see in the photo is a state of the meter not of the power generator.
    The maximum range of the clamps ( round shaped ) we see in the photo is 100A so I would exclude the 160A generator.

    @randombit0
    I originally thought either the 80A or the 125 A model was most likely. More detailed examination of the coat-hanger-like heater coils suggest that as high amperage a unit as available would be a good idea, to get some headroom for the current, in case of sloppy dialling up. It is a very voltage-sensitive coil.


    I agree in general about the 100A clamp being used for a controller of less than 100A capacity. That is not proof by any stretch, unfortunately.

    @randombit0


    There is no mistery in the way the "Fusion" controĺler is operated.


    Each line has two antiparallel SCRs. If we refer to line I1 these are opened at the zero crossing of V12 and V13 at 120 degree spacing, and closed after a controlled time delay, almost half a period. This explains why one sees two positive and two negative narrow peaks.


    The Lugano report shows identical rms current on all three "rods" so it is unreasonable and it would contradict the data to think that the other inputs are behaving differently.


    No hocus pocus, if one knows the load resistance and the SCR duty cycle, the power input is unambiguous. Just a bit tough to compute by hand but we have computers to help - see figures 5 to 7 of this link.
    http://cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123571297_1.pdf


    But as I already said the electrical input is not the most important issue in the Lugano report where the error les in the emissivity.
    It is just disturbing to see a plot declaredly representative of the experiment (it is there to show that harmonic content is well read by the instrument so it has to be representative) and to find out that it shows 3 times higher power than declared.


    I must say I am intrigued by your attention dear Miss Randombit0. As to my motivations, again no mistery: like most of the followers of this saga, skeptics included, I was at first impressed by Mr. Rossi's claims due to Prof.Focardi's endorsement, and felt betrayed when analysing the test reports and finding apparent flaws big enough to invalidate the claims and never properly addressed by the authors who ignored or hastily dismissed all objections. So thanks for replying.


    @Paradigmnoia


    The PCE830 associated to PCE8601 clamps will yield an OL reading for current peaking above 160A. This was checked experimentally by the GSVIT group. See this link at paragraph 4.3 and figure 41. The post is in Italian but pictures and videos should be easy to understand.
    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…atore-di-potenza-pce-830/

    Quote from andrea.s

    I must say I am intrigued by your attention dear Miss Randombit0.


    As am I. It seems she has a BA in English and is a product manager.

    Sometimes people have a wide range of skills. Clearly randombit0 can count electrical engineering among them.

    @Andrea S.
    Please. I have already explained to you that with only one phase data is really not advisable to try to calculate the power.
    Trying to make calculations with insufficient data can lead to use to many assumptions and make tremendous errors.


    Then also please DO NOT act as a dis-informer The OL could be easily obtained setting the clamps full scale to 10A. To be nice patient and professional I had also tried to read the "document" you linked.


    I do not understand Italian but what I see from the pictures and formulas of the blog you refer is something out of any plausibility! The peak current value they calculate from their assumptions ( i.e. that the clamp has been set to 100A.....), 682A, is so high that would had damaged the power generator. In fact that people has simulated a high current conditions ( from what I see from fig.39) and NOT experimented it in reality.
    On my opinion, EVENTUALLY, supposing the clamp set to 10A, a peak value of 68A could be much more reasonable.

    • Official Post

    randombitO,


    For one,sadly, I am getting the impression that is not your real picture. :) Two, that you have some substance. Three, having studied the results carefully, you are here to defend the Lugano testers and their conclusions.


    No problem with that if I am right (probably not), but I am curious if I am...are you one of the Lugano professors? If not, do you know one of the professors? If not, in defending them, do any of them know you are here for that purpose?


    Lugano is almost old news, and while I think any topic, no matter how old, is fun to argue, it just seems odd -but in a good way, that you pop up here and now, to make their case. Where have you been?

    @Shane D. Nice that you have interest about me, but I can't accept a date.
    I don't know the "Lugano Professors" personally and I don't think that they know me.
    I presume that they don't read blogs.


    Where I have been ? In a laboratory that is extremely interested in new technology.
    Is quite a shame that so much junk information populate discussions in the net. Seems that people like, or have interest to, create a parallel ( fake ) reality.
    I'm here to try a real scientific discussion. And eventually remove some junk information.

    "I do not understand Italian".


    That was a good one.



    I don't think we are going anywhere in this dispute Prof. Randombit0.
    Thanks for taking the time to read.
    Note I am not part of the GSVIT (though I do have exchanges with them at times) and did not coauthor that post.

    I think that randombit01 is doing a good job making a stand. If she does know the Lugano testers then she likely has word that a review of the original findings is underway. I understand there is trouble in emissivity land but who knows which way that cookie will actually crumble. I am also aware that some additional truth may be heading our way on or before June 4th as well as, wait for it.....July 4th. What is good for the goose is equally good or greater for the gander.

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.