The Playground

  • With the very materials in question, the emissivity values for various calculations that were related to temperature and power become almost arbitrary and a COP of 3-4 can be within error.

    What is the maximum 'COP' possible from conflating the camera and total emissivities of high temperature materials?

  • So Alan inserts himself again - and into the Playground no less.

    What wisdom do you have to share with us about your decision to alter the conversation this time Alan? The Lugano reactor was Durapot 810 alumina cement, not anywhere close to the 99% alumina that was reported by Levi in the official report. Where would you like to start Alan?

    Dewey, the fact that the lugano report (and therefore what was measured) is different from what the Lugano reactor was mde of, as you claim, is disturbing but I guess on par with the fuel switch than must have occurred. Careless, but difficult in isolation to evaluate.

    The 810 alumina cement I'd not expect to be very different from pure alumina as far as the relevant characteristics go. It will be different. But i can't see substituting pure alumina for this as obviously moving the calcs either way. What it does do is make the book values seem less flakey than they are - ie lend more credibility to the calculation. Although, even cleaned up with mistake corrected, no-one would see it as a safe way to measure COP due to the lack of control.

    rb0 seems not to want to pursue arguments about the wrong Lugano report method.

    The other thing: if the Lugano reactor was painted off-white:

    (1) that screws up everything, because we cannot know the optical characteristics of the paint

    (2) if white however it will not be high emissivity at least in the visual band - by definition

    (3) the crucial IR band emissivity just is not known, nor is the total emissivity

    So in that case neither The Lugano calcs nor TC's can be trusted.

    • Official Post

    I've just dug a post on vortex about Durapot 810 speculation.…

    for the curious, here is a catalog with a spec table…cement-48.html?lang=en_US

    note that in the IH/Rossi patent, Durapot810 is cited as a confirmed embodiment

    [0075] In some embodiments, an optional refractory layer 18 with supports 20 are positioned around the resistance wires 16 to thereby hold the wires in position. As illustrated, the refractory layer 18 has a ribbed or finned surface, which may increase heat dissipation away from the reaction chamber 12. It should be understood, however, that the refractory layer 18 may omit the ribbed or finned surface, and may instead have a smooth, rough or other surface configuration. The refractory layer 18 and supports 20 may be omitted in some embodiments. The refractory layer 18 may be formed of a thermally conductive material and may be electrically resistant to reduce or prevent shorting or arcing events. In some embodiments, the refractory layer 18, supports 20 and sealing members 14 are formed of an alumina base. For example, an alumina base with volume resistivity of 1Q11 ohm -cm or better, dielectric strength of 270 volts/mil or better, thermal expansion of 4.5 10"6/defF or lower, and thermal conductivity of 15 BTU-in/defF-Hr-ft2 or higher, such as Durapot™ 810 (Cotronics Corp., Brooklyn, NY (USA)), is suitable. Those skilled in the art will understand based on upon the present disclosure that the attributes of a refractory layer may vary based upon a type of energy input, a reactive material, a positioning and/or coupling of an energy input unit with respect to a reaction chamber, a target energy output and/or maximum energy output, a target energy input and/or a maxim energy input, a use of the reactor device, a pattern of energy input and/or output, and/or a location of the device with respect to another object and/or person - to name some examples.

    [0081] In particular embodiments, the reaction chamber 112 may be formed of stainless steel or other thermally conductive materials. The housing 115 has wire grooves therein for holding the resistance wires 116. The refractory layer 118 may be a poured refractory compound, such as Durapot™ 810.

    [0082] As illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6, a reaction device 200 includes a reaction chamber 212 that forms a hollow cylinder and has sealing members 214A and refractory wedges 214B at opposing ends thereof. The device 200 includes a housing 215 and one or more thermal units or resistance wires 216 that are formed around the housing 215 and are configured to transfer heat to the reaction chamber 212. A refractory layer 218A and an additional housing 218B with supports 220 are positioned around the resistance wires 216. The reaction chamber 212 may be formed of stainless steel or other thermally conductive materials. The housing 215 has wire grooves therein for holding the resistance wires 216. The refractory layer 218A and the supports 220 may be a poured refractory compound, such as Durapot™ 810. The housing 218B may be formed of a thermally conductive material such as stainless steel.

  • Maryyugo, it is a exception there is no symbol table referenced because well its java and nested , so part of the io request failed. Then database request failed. They will have a monitor and it will just need to be retried. Probably a distributed error hard to track down. Just retry after a bit.

  • Alan - We know that the Bologna University folks have kept their integrity so there are no questions or concerns there - I have no doubt that they tested and reported on material that was delivered to them by Levi. Taking it from there, what part of the story would you like adjust from a Durapot 810 reactor at Lugano to 99% pure alumina material test result with Levi as the middleman per his own words?


    Was the analytical test by X-Ray diffraction? If so, what does an X-ray look like if you take say 80% crystalline material and mix it with 20% amorphous material of similar density? Won't the amorphous material just elevate the background and the spectrum be dominated by the crystalline material? Alumina has many different diffraction spectra. What phase was identified? When you say 99% pure what does that mean - 99% of what you can see? It is like saying some metal is 99.99% pure but only relative to what was analyzed and the precision and sensitivity for various impurities.

  • Since no one bit on the Lugano reactors question - they were made by IH in Raleigh with Durapot 810, which per Cotronics, has between 75% and 85% alumina powder in the cement, batch dependent. You then get to factor in another tidbit - the Lugano reactor was apparently painted in Lugano by either Rossi or one of the testers. Specific paint color, make and model unknow

    Probably you are writing in name of IH. Is quite notorious that you have strict connections with them. So you are now claiming that the reactor was painted ?

    Are you crazy ? Have you any real proof of what you are writing.

    Is quite interesting that IH is taking this (FUD) "information" out just now !

    I would like to remember everybody that IH has filled a patent before the publication of the Lugano paper copying many parts of it. So IH was well informed of the work of the Professors and even used it for submitting a patent application. Note that even the Alumina emissivity curve is reported in the patent.

    The link is here:…entor=andrea+rossi&page=3

    Apparently for IH everything was ok in the period they collected about 250M$ from investors.

  • ele - it is notoriuos to note as well, that you always show up when somebody questions or challenges the "Lugano report" and the results with respect to wrong measurements, wrong emmisivity, wrong COP, seems you have much more insights than anybody else here on this forum and somebody claiming that the Lugano experiment might not have shown excess heat is a huge problem for you ...why??

  • Good find Alan!

    I see the Sockpuppets have been deployed for damage control on yet another of their substantial problems. My guess is that Rossi handed Levi some material, advised him that this was from the reactor cement batch and asked him to have it analyzed. That is the most helpful way for Levi to not be totally sucked into this section of the fray. If Levi wants to own the sample acquisition himself them just say the word.

    Corroborated paint evidence in hand for the Lugano reactor.

    Attn Sockpuppets - this is a pre-game warm up notice. Let's classify this as the tiddlywinks round.

    • Official Post

    BTW- this is a still unresolved puzzle for me...quoted from the MFMP website. Let me add btw, FWIW that Francesco Celani and Andrea Rossi are not best friends, but if the E-Cat does nothing, how can this occurence be explained? I know that Francesco CELANI posts here sometimes- perhaps he has thoughts on this?

    'Francesco was sitting down with other scientists and guests waiting to be called in for the demonstration, they were 7 – 8m away from E-Cat which was behind a door in another room.

    Francesco had 2 gamma detectors with him, 1 very cheap and 1 very expensive battery operated 1.25” NaI(TI) detection range of 25keV to 2000 keV.

    He notes that the background in Frascatti is normally around 120 because of local geology, but in Bologna it is 60, Francesco Celani set the detectors accordingly and the assembled group sat there patiently waiting.

    Suddenly and for about 1 second, both detectors topped out 1000+ counts PER SECOND and sounded their alarms (they could not show any more). Several of the invited observers considered literally running from the building as it was speculated that Rossi might be leveraging a radioactive source in his experiment. Why such concern? Well, radiation falls off according to Newtons 1/d^2 law as you can see here.

    Plugging the minimum 1000 counts per second and 8 meters into the formula would mean that 50cm from the E-Cat, the counts would be over a quarter million per second - not good!

    However, luckily the momentary signal collapsed and about two minutes later, Rossi came into the waiting room to invite people in to see the E-cat saying “the reaction has started”.'

  • THH - that is one dataset that we're working to have resolved. Thermocouples on the remaining virgin Lugano reactor run-up the temp scale (oven then resistance wire) with the same make / model camera. (no paint then same paint)

    Just a slight comment. Sticking TC's to reactor surface can be tricky, and can also change if on top of paint. So maybe use TC inside (which will be higher than surface temp but give comparative results) or be careful about how you do the sticking - lots of durapot 810 over top etc. That also means temp read will be a bit higher than surface temp of course! Best comparison would be to paint stripes on something and measure both paint and non-paint simultaneously

    Another small comment. Maybe you have guys who understand this but don't assume it. Read the TC paper about how view factor / shape factor alters effective emissivity and note that at any wavelength the emissivity will be moved closer to 1 by this factor because of the re-reflection from the ridges. again, you don't get this correction if you stick a TC on top with a flat lump of glue. These are relatively minor corrections - but real ones that can cause confusion if not understood.


  • Alan - the remaining Lugano reactor has been in Raleigh and the present chain of custody is well in-hand. I am aware of another initial test (private) in Italy where there was a very brief burst of energetic particles that showed up on a handheld sensor but not to alarm levels. It was an intriguing event at the time with no such luck of a repeat during the years of testing in Raleigh. Please don't ask for more information about where Rossi and his cohorts were and / or what they were doing at the "burst: moment because those details were not noted. BTW - the "reactor" was purportedly running at the time of that signal.

    Also, I enjoyed getting to know Francesco a little better in Sendai. He's a good man and knows a lot about Rossi's past / Italian LENR days. He also has a great sense of humor.

    THH - duly-noted and thank you.

    • Official Post

    The Celani adventure is par of the positive heuristc supporting e-cat.

    I would accept it if there was a client in Doral, and if the remarks of IH agains Rossi's calorimetry were finally accepted for a test during few days with IH representative lurking freely in the plant...

    However, a coherent alternative reality emerges.

    If my Geiger counter get crazy near an E-cat, I will look for smoke an mirrors hiding a gamma source, or an X-ray generator.

    Trust have to be re-established, and this can be done by a good experiments with not-a-friendly team of plumbers lurking in every corner, installing instruments.

    Else, we have better use of our time and investors money.

  • Alainco - Zero above the noise Geiger / energetic particle sensor activity around any and all Ecat tests done by IH and IH affiliated labs.

    There is nothing to be measured. No trust to be re-established either - we gave him way beyond the benefit of the doubt in that regard.