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

Quote from axil

I alway know that Tom Clarke was wrong about Lugano because the core of that reactor melted.

The core of the Lugano reactor never melted.
Have you red the report or not ? I think not.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is exactly the reason why we should stop discussing this report. It screws up everybody's (me included) mind, because most details in the Lugano report present a new uncertainty, we can't cope with. Just to add a few more: Wrong calculation of resistance/wattage for the wires, extensive heat transport over outgoing copper wires into the rods. Picking some particle out of the ash and doing MS etc..

1) Joule heating power. When we (oh sorry, I'm not alone) analyzed the report we notice that. In particular a factor Sqrt(3)=1.732 and the cos(phy)<1 are missing . The two errors partially compensate each other but we think that rhe team under estimated slightly the real result. This should mean that they under estimated also the COP by a few %. Not really a problem
2) Heat transport. The wires coming out from the reactor were not made by copper but with same alloy of the resistors.
3) Picking some particle. There was severe restrictions by Rossi and IH on the test. The samples were collected by the team anyway so what the problem ?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Maybe they did, but did not show their work.

Figure 7 shows their work. Emissivity reference dots were used only on the alumina pipes were was possible to use them.
The curve you show was used for the reactor were the temperature was much higher and is correct for the alumina type they used.

Quote from randombit0

The core of the Lugano reactor never melted.
Have you red the report or not ? I think not.

1) Joule heating power. When we (oh sorry, I'm not alone) analyzed the report we notice that. In particular a factor Sqrt(3)=1.732 and the cos(phy)<1 are missing . The two errors partially compensate each other but we think that rhe team under estimated slightly the real result. This should mean that they under estimated also the COP by a few %. Not really a problem
2) Heat transport. The wires coming out from the reactor were not made by copper but with same alloy of the resistors.
3) Picking some particle. There was severe restrictions by Rossi and IH on the test. The samples were collected by the team anyway so what the problem ?

Take a look at fuel particle 1 in the appendix.

Also see the description of how particle 1 was sampled

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf

Quote

At the temperature of operation of the ECat used in the Lugano test, the Lithium contained in the LiAlH4 is vaporized, and consequently was distributed evenly within the volume of the E-Cat. In contrast, the Nickel fuel remained in a solid or liquid state. At the time of sampling after one month of operation, Nickel was found to be encrusted on the internal surface of the reactor, from which a 2 mg sample of “ash” was obtained near to the center of the charge. Starting with an initial charge of approximately 1 gram, it cannot be said that the 2 mg sample was necessarily representative of the entire Nickel charge, but it remains to be explained how the isotopic ratios in the 2 mg sample show predominantly 62 28Ni34.

Particle 1 was liquid during the reactor run.

@randombit0
Figure 7 shows them doing the work, but they did not show their work, as in adjusting the literature-based emissivity plot to reflect the empirical data.

“We therefore took the same emissivity trend found in the literature as reference; but, by applying emissivity reference dots along the rods, we were able to adapt that curve to this specific type of alumina, by directly measuring local emissivity in places close to the reference dots (Figure 7).”
(emphasis mine)

"The temperature at the rectangle next to the circle (237.5 °C) is obtained by setting an emissivity value for alumina found in the literature [3.]"

In fact, the total spectral radiance in the 7.5 to 13 micron IR range at an ε 0.71 at 237.5 °C (ε from the Al ε vs T, plot 1), is not equivalent to the total spectral radiance at an ε of 0.95 at 235 °C in the 7.5 to 13 micron band.
About 287°C at 0.71 is much closer. But that isn't right either, because the values in the Plot 1 chart are for total hemispherical emissivity of alumina, not Optris spectral detection bandwidth emissivity for alumina.
So something weird is going on in Figure 7.

(Maybe Thomas can try this out and see if I'm out to lunch on this, since he has the code already. Anyone else can give it a go, too.)

Now, if they did the iteration thing (in the style of table 2a, & 2b) they might have ended up at around 272°C with an ε of 0.77, in which case the total spectral radiance would match, but the 272°C and 235°C do not match.

The photo (figure 7) does seem to indicate a lower ε than 0.95 is appropriate. But the values do not seem to add up with other assertions.

Quote from frankwtu

I have a great deal of respect for Thomas, but I think even he realises if you swim with the sharks you are going to get bitten every now and then. I remember he was quite supportive of Mary Yugo who many thought brought interesting facts to the forum but crossed the line with personal ad homs. So it is a balance, anything which is claimed here must be supported by evidence, it is right that any evidence presented might be questioned quite aggressively, but an attack on the person is not an option

That is correct Frank. In fact my position is nuanced. I don't personally like MY's abrasive manner and the way that she emphasises the personal moral turpitude of her targets. Such emotions are not my cup of tea, and also don't help finding the truth. Also, they are very bad spin - no-on pays attention to her because of perceived "bias".

As you can see from this thread I'm spin-neutral. Some of the things I naturally do (like being polite and fair) are "good spin" which make what I say more likely to be believed. Other things I do - like saying what I think clearly and immediately - and equally clearly reversing it when I realise I'm wrong - are bad spin. Were I wanting to influence I would be much more careful in what I say, and never explicitly state that I'd made a mistake. Of course in written material that I sit on for 6 months improving before letting it be published there is a much smaller chance of mistake than in an off the cuff post here - but mistakes are always possible!

But my real point is this. If you cling to authority (whether me, Levi, random - choose your model avatar - bit) you are lost. If you cling to those who poke holes at authority you are equally lost. Their are only two ways out:
(1) You go with laws of numbers and agree with the science consensus
(2) You work things out for yourself.

For example: even Mats, with guidance, is capable of comparing what I say about the thermography and what Levi says and realising that Levi is misunderstanding how it works. He is reluctant to do this and would need to study it to be sure. Being mats, he might just say - well I'm not sure till I get an independent opinion. Others here (e.g. paradigmnoia I think - he will correct if I'm wrong) will be sure that Levi is not understanding the issue because they have worked it out for themselves. You can go with "law of large forum numbers" but it is uncomfortable since only the very few who have taken an interest in the issue and followed it for themselves can have an informed view, but many may vote, and many may claim to have an informed view while going from "gut feeling". So sorting out sheep from goats is difficult and requires your judgement anyway.

Quote from randombit

Dear Mr. Clarke,read the report and find the answers. Don't mess up with just insults. The fraction of power in the rod is higher because when the reactor is at high temperature the heat conduction along the wires from the reactor to the rods in higher.Have a good night and sleep well.

randombit. I've challenged you on a number of occasions above to look at the report, and my statements, and identify what is wrong. I repeat that challenge. Without such engagement with the science, in this exchange, you count as one of Frank's "sharks". And with every non-substance post you make the teeth grow bigger.

He is quite right that I'm prepared to take what I get swimming with such, and do so gladly in this exchange with you. But it is a fact that over the matters we discuss I have precisely answered all points (I think - if there is something new, or whether you have forgotten my answer, I'm sure you will let me know).

Whereas you have not answered my repeated (because true once and still true after reflection) point. Just to be clear: I am answering you properly and with attention and effort, as I would anyone who was a sincere seeker of greater understanding and interested in the details. I have precious little information as yet that you are such but perhaps this will change.

You see to determine truth in these matters is not a game, where you fling insults and score the number of hits. It is about comparing opposing arguments and seeing which stand up....

To work:

Quote

The fraction of power in the rod is higher because when the reactor is at high temperature the heat conduction along the wires from the reactor to the rods in higher.Have a good night and sleep well.

(1) while this argument has no obvious merit for reasons I'll describe in (3) below, it is also spin. I have explicitly said that I don't know for this system whether you'd expect a higher or lower fraction of power from the rods as the system temperature goes up - it depends on the non-linearity of the various power emission components and I just have not though about it enough to know. It is sort of an interesting question and let us go on considering it - if you can help me by making a positive contribution.

(2) It is not relevant to the overall question. Not even a little bit. The point of considering the rods (where arguments are so flaky) was to try to pick holes in the main thermography argument in my paper. If you could prove the rod data showed a much higher temperature in the reactor than I calculated then we have two opposing arguments and some assumption somewhere must be wrong. Go for further investigation.

But you cannot, for the reason that more power in the rods (as a fraction of total) is expected anyway if the rods have temperature over-calculated. And you can see from the report rod temperatures (large amounts above 380C) that that will be the case.

As an additional check - if you have the willpower - I admit to be slightly flagging - you could do a numerical recalculation of the rods similar to my recalculation of the reactor body and see whether the observed effect is what is expected. I'm not sure that you have enough info in the report to do this, because we have the extra uncertainty of not knowing which points on the rods have had emissivity calibrated and which not. This makes a big difference to the answer.

(3) here goes...
This is a strange argument. The fraction of power from the rods should increase because the main body is hotter and therefore the heat conduction is higher? Why? That just means that the total power from the rods is higher, it says nothing about the fraction. After all we know if the center is heated more the rods will be hotter...

The rod temperature is an equilibrium in which the power conducted from the "center" must balance the power dissipated by the rods. To answer exactly we need to consider the rods as distributed and solve PDEs for a separate temperature at each point. Let us not go there! We can get some idea for how this works (maybe) with the simplest model. Of a lumped isothermal "center" connected to a lumped isothermal "rods" via a fixed thermal conductance Theta so that:
Theta - thermal conductance (constant)
Tc - temperature of centre
Tr - temperature of rods
P = power conducted in
P_rod(Tr) = power dissipated by rods as calculated from rod temperature

P = (Tc - Tr) * Theta = P_rod(Tr)

where Theta is the fixed thermal conductivity from center to rods.

we need to solve this for Tr in terms of Tc. then we need to translate Tc into P_center(Tc) and Tr into P_rod(Tr) and compare the two powers to see how the fraction changes.

I hope you can see why my answer above - when first replying to Wyttenbach about the 2/3 factor - was that this was difficult to analyse. That would not stop me if it was important, but you can see from (1) and (2) above that even if you do analyse it properly there are too many other uncertainties to get anywhere.

Let us take the simplest case of
P_rod(Tr) = KrTr
P_center(Tc) = KcTc

ie power dissipated is proportional to temperature which we measure relative to ambient. This will be true for low temperatures but of course not true at high temperatures where the T^4 powers come into play.

(Tc-Tr)Theta = KrTr =>
Tr = Tc*Theta/(Kr+Theta)

The temperatures are linear, and of course the powers are also linear and the fraction stays the same as was pretty obvious would be the case.

Now what happens if P_rod(Tr) and P_center(Tr) have some other dependence, say sq law, on temperature?

randombit0 - I think you are saying that you can see why this evidence from the rods shows the thermography argument wrong. I don't see how it can be relevant however we solve this, because of (1) and (2) above. But you might feel this is crucial.

Either:
(1) resolve for me the ambiguites in (1) and (2) above so if we have an exact solution to the rod versus centre temperature dependence to make deductions about the reactor temperature. Then I will be motivated to tie up this very distant loose end.
Or:
(2) solve the rod/centre equations for the case P_rod (Tr) = Tr^n for some n > 1? That won'd be enough (the lumped element approximation is clearly wrong and it matters) but it will help us get some idea of what is going on here.

I think (2) is probably the easiest to do, and I'd be (in the abstract) interested in a good solution?

Quote

@Thomas ClarkeBased on the below images, there is no evidence that the Optris emissivity was adjusted by using the emissivity stickers. Maybe they did, but did not show their work. That is why I have some doubts about the dummy temperature.Based on data I looked up, plus experiments I did, the line is usually much flatter on the low T side of the plot, almost all the way to 20°C, with a higher emissivity. Up to a normal emissivity of almost one in porous, rough alumina, below 400 C. Below 100°C, I had a great deal of trouble getting good epsilon values. There is also a depth problem with IR in very porous, non-incandescent materials, where one may be measuring IR from effectively below the surface.But who knows what the device was like.

Good points - and I too have some doubts about the report in many ways. But I go with the simplest, which is that what they say is true. Specifically it is clear the graph they give is the book emissivity and NOT adjusted from temperature calibration - or the low temp part of it would be 0.9 or so. And having done this yes there remain big uncertainties because of alumina translucence, variation in properties of different alumina types, etc. Not to blow my own trumpet - but I do mention these in my long written "Caveats" section...

Really the temperature calibration process - mentioned clearly in the report as being done where possible using the reference spots - is most badly recorded. Like a politician slipping in bad news on a day no-one will notice. And because they do not state precisely how they did it or what they did all the low temperature stuff becomes uncertain.

Quote from randombit

1) Joule heating power. When we (oh sorry, I'm not alone) analyzed the report we notice that. In particular a factor Sqrt(3)=1.732 and the cos(phy)<1 are missing . The two errors partially compensate each other but we think that rhe team under estimated slightly the real result. This should mean that they under estimated also the COP by a few %. Not really a problem2) Heat transport. The wires coming out from the reactor were not made by copper but with same alloy of the resistors. 3) Picking some particle. There was severe restrictions by Rossi and IH on the test. The samples were collected by the team anyway so what the problem ?

Joule Heating Power
Agreed - the 1.732 factor does not matter.
Agreed - Joule heating power does not significantly affect COP
You have not commented on the weird apparent 3X change in heater resistance. You say above that you know the resistors are metal alloy, so resistance cannot chnage so much. Therefore we have a different electrical setup changed from Wye to Delta maybe? This is not necessarily a big deal, and should not affect power calculations, but will mean that if there are saturation issues in current clamps they will be much larger for the active test than the dummy test. Comments? (I don't want to make too much of this - on balance I think the report calculations here are likely correct, but a change in electrical setup not documented is at best very bad practice).

Quote

Figure 7 shows their work. Emissivity reference dots were used only on the alumina pipes were was possible to use them.The curve you show was used for the reactor were the temperature was much higher and is correct for the alumina type they used.

Agreed. But it is then unclear whether the "adjusted" emissivity was used at low temperatures (on the outer part of the rods) during the active test. Maybe dots were placed on the rods for that up to their maximum temperature and used? And then for the higher temperature test some were taken off? The trouble is that between 380C - where the dots show band emissivity of 0.9 or so - and 400C - too high for dots - where the book curve shows 0.7 or so there is a big discontinuity in the graph. How did the report authors deal with that? Ignore it?

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

@Paradigmnoia - as you will know there is nothing I like better than to try to solve these overall pretty pointless but fascinating problems! give me a week because I have other stuff to do now...

@randombit0 appeared not for real from initial posts - but the two posts I quoted above show possibly for real, or else clever at spin. In that case while I'm not here be nice to her/him/them and help her/him/them work out the whole Delta/Wye resistance issue? the data needs explanation and she/he/they have indicated she/he/they believe the resistors to be made of metal alloy (not SiC which would have very different appearance) and therefore cannot have a very large NTC.

I have some wonderful delta vs wye plots. But I became bored of that ages ago, one I was satisfied that at least the electrical end of things was, or at least could be, consistent with normal reality. I could have fixed up my horrible spreadsheet for all the Power, Joule heating and such, when I found a minor error while making the aforementioned plots, that changes the final derived resistance values by a tenth of an ohm or so... But it was far more challenging getting the required resistances into an actual coil. Luckily IH spilled the beans with a patent application, so that the trade secret windings were revealed. The resistance figure they mention in the application is nonsense, in my opinion. But revealing the wire size was good enough to work it out. Putting just the right spin, I mean twist on the wires makes a world of difference.

Quote from axil

Particle 1 was liquid during the reactor run.

Ok Axil in that case is just a matter of definitions, you intended as reactor core what I call fuel.
Nickel melting point is 1455 °C at 1 Atm. Not knowing the pressure inside the reactor we can't calculate or estimate the actual melting point. The Li was almost surely vaporized.

It takes pressures in the order of several GPa to significantly alter the melting point of Ni, see: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab…103/PhysRevLett.95.167801

Quote from Thomas Clarke

the data needs explanation and she/he/they have indicated she/he/they believe the resistors to be made of metal alloy (not SiC which would have very different appearance) and therefore cannot have a very large NTC.

Dear Mr.Clarke,
She (have you any problem ?) will give you an explanation. This issue was already answered more then one year ago.
The actual material of the coils in not known but a good hypothesis is that should be a Kanthal rod.
This material has a ohmic behavior i.e. his resistance decreases when temperature increase.
Kanthal is a metal alloy, and the wires coming out from the reactor were made by that material.
The system was always connected in Delta configuration.

Quote from Ecco

It takes pressures in the order of several GPa to significantly alter the melting point of Ni, see: journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.167801

Sure. We know that paper but due the high derivative of the curve a pressure of 0.01 GPa ( about 100 Atm ) could change the melting point by some degree.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The resistance figure they mention in the application is nonsense, in my opinion. But revealing the wire size was good enough to work it out.

Kanthal like alloys have a very special resistance vs temperature behavior. Knowing just the diameter but NOT the material can hardly help you to calculate the resistance.

Quote

She (have you any problem ?)

Not at all, I respect sexual identities on internet forums as in real life. I was confused above by your use of "we", but will remember from now on a singular female.

Quote

will give you an explanation. This issue was already answered more then one year ago.The actual material of the coils in not known but a good hypothesis is that should be a Kanthal rod.

Kanthal is a trade name for heating elements of many types - do you mean Kanthal SiC rod which could have a X3 resistance decrease (possibly)?
http://kanthal.com/en/products…carbide-heating-elements/

Quote

This material has a ohmic behavior i.e. his resistance decreases when temperature increase.Kanthal is a metal alloy, and the wires coming out from the reactor were made by that material.

SiC (which can have very high NTC and so perhaps give a X3 decrease over the given temperature range) is not a metal alloy - it is a semiconductor alloy of silicon and carbon, neither metals, and the heating elements do not appear metallic and are brittle, they cannot be bent. Of course an SiC element could have internal connections to Inconel etc termination wires, which you see. Or, the Kanthal element you refer to could be ohmic as you say and a metal alloy, FeCrAl (popularly sold as Kanthal):
http://kanthal.com/en/products…etallic-heating-elements/
In that case its terminations could be the heating wire itself.
However Kanthal FeCrAl wire, like nearly all other metallic (ohmic) alloys does not have an NTC and could not give this 1/3 resistance at higher temperature
So I'm still slightly confused but it is probably not a big deal.

Quote

The system was always connected in Delta configuration.

In that case the only heating element that could possibly have the stated characteristics is SiC - these elements are fixed shape and cannot be reformed - though you can get custom elements made I believe. They might appear to have metallic connections if wires are bolted to the end of the elements.

PS - you will find that the special negative temperature coefficient needed to match the data can only come from a semiconducting heater where at high temperatures valence electrons have enough energy to move to conduction band and increase conductance. The thing about these semiconductors is that they are also, necessarily, brittle, never ductile. Therefore it is not possible to have connection wires made of the same material unless they are fixed shape and not ductile (and unlike normal connection wires).

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Some of the things I naturally do (like being polite and fair) are "good spin" which make what I say more likely to be believed.

With good spin goes 'poignant sound bites' and with that observation perhaps I can offer you of a quote attributed to 'Blaise Pascal' "I am sorry I have had to write you such a long letter, but I did not have time to write you a short one". A similar rendition is attributed to Mark Twain.

The risk is always to fall into the politicians mantra very cleverly put by W C Fields: “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullXXXX.” So the 'spin bit doesn't seem to be working, not for me anyway!!

Who was it that said "Keep it simple stupid"

Best regards
Frank

Quote from Frank

The risk is always to fall into the politicians mantra very cleverly put by W C Fields: “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullXXXX.” So the 'spin bit doesn't seem to be working, not for me anyway!!Who was it that said "Keep it simple stupid"

Some things just are not simple. KISS refers to human-controlled things, where you have choice!

To be fair, many ECW readers have such sensitive bullXXXX detectors that they view any scientific argument not supporting LENR as bullXXXX.

Eric is on point here:

Thomas Darden needs to realize that he believes it’s perfectly okay to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Darden’s moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he claims that we’re supposed to shut up and smile when he says temulent things.

INDISPUTABLE FACTS:

In 2005 the Cherokee owned company EnCap received more than $300 million in publicly sponsored bond financing for the Meadowland project in New Jersey and then filed for bankruptcy protection later in 2008 and did not complete the project.

EnCap and another Cherokee affiliate earned millions of dollars in dumping fees on fill brought to the site.

Cherokee created a whopping 27 new business entities in New Jersey alone.

William Gauger, the CEO that Darden appointed was indicted by FBI for “fraudulent invoicing scheme“.

In 2003, Cherokee raised $620 million in equity for investment in projects around the world.

Cherokee’s portfolio of projects included industrial, office, hotel and residential properties. The shareholders of the investment funds are primarily large pension funds.

In the meantime, from 2001 to 2004, Cherokee and its consultants had contributed almost $1.5 million to the Democratic State Committee to win the project on Petty’s Island, a $1 billion waterfront makeover intended to increase tax revenue and transform the town.

Cherokee’s law firm DeCotiis even tapped Joseph Salema, a former top aide to Gov. James Florio.

Salema pleaded guilty to securities fraud in 1995.

How much money did the politically connected DeCotiis law firm and other EnCap consultants make from the pool of public financing? The Record reported during its own yearlong investigation that the Teaneck firm had billed nearly $9 million by 2004 alone.

Thomas Darden’s words .. sound pretty until you read between the lines ...
and see that Darden is secretly saying that he intends to exploit public sympathy
in order to bolster support for his escapades.

Let me end this letter by challenging the readers to urge lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that

Mr. Thomas Darden’s success is just a flash in the pan. Are you with me, or with the forces of aspheterism and oppression?

Folks, check your facts:

FBI
https://www.fbi.gov/newark/pre…udulent-invoicing-schemes

The Philly Inquirer
http://articles.philly.com/200…t-developer-jim-mcgreevey

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10…eal-new-jersey-style.html

Justia US Law
http://law.justia.com/cases/ne…ed/2007/a3136-05-opn.html

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report
http://nj.gov/comptroller/news/oig/pdf/Meadowlands Remediation and Redevelopment Project.pdf

Thomas

Quote from Thomas Clarke

To be fair, many ECW readers have such sensitive bullXXXX detectors that they view any scientific argument not supporting LENR as bullXXXX.

Now why would someone who wants MY to return be concerned about that?

Don't forget, this thread is about reducing the BS sorry, 'fog' so I think everything must be done to achieve that.

One thing is clear to me at least, is that we must wait to see if, first IH et al claim the Rossi Effect is 'illusory' and second if the court rule it to be 'illusory'. Without a claim from IH et al to this effect, I think it unlikely the court will rule the invention to be illusory. So all this 'fog' about Kanthal rods and other issues that may influence the quality of the readings is of little consequence, if IH do not claim the invention is 'illusory'.

But of course they may, and when they do many of their investors will say: 'so when did you realise this before you asked us to invest or after'?

So, you see this 'dispute' is not about Kanthal rods, although the science may well be. I think much of this is 'OFF TOPIC' see thread: To discus the 'science' behind the dispute between Rossi and Industrial Heat which discusses the rods etc.

Best regards
Frank

Quote from beckett

Eric is on point here:

Just to be clear, beckett is referring to a different Eric.