The Playground

  • rb0 ,

    Clearly we have irreconcilable differences of opinion on the Optris emissivity and alumina, etc. We are at an impasse.

    So let's move on to another subject for a fresh start.

    Dewey once claimed that there was a little problem of a serial number on the water meter (AKA flowmeter).

    Do you suppose that by serial number, he meant the actual serial number, or maybe instead the model number? (Since the reported (by Murray, Exhibit 5) model number seems so unsuitable for the required purpose).

    Below are two images of the model specified by Murray, albeit the one used on the mW plant might not have used the steel cover and electric counter sending unit with convenient 100kg (~L) increments.

    The flow rates on the label are as Murray described. Note there is both a model number tag and a serial number. If the model number was transcribed wrong by Murray, then perhaps a water meter that was operating within it's certified range was actually installed and used.

  • Dewey,

    Maybe you can explain why the following conversation didn't happen.

    For the record the following conversation is totally hypothetical. Before I am lynched for making up falsehoods, I want to state repeatedly the following is totally made up. I wrote it and it is not real quotes from IH or Rossi. It is fictitious. Fake. Fallacious. However, I am very curious why a similar conversation did not take place. And, for the record, this UNREAL conversation that didn't happen isn't to attack IH or Rossi. I'm writing this because I feel the eighteen hour test is one of the most convincing tests ever conducted. Oh, and this fake conversation took place (which it didn't) before a single dollar had transferred to Andrea Rossi. Well, maybe Darden had bought him a coffee at Starbucks.

    Rossi: I'll be happy to demonstrate my latest and greatest high temperature hot cat to you. Here is a diagram for you to review and performance estimates. Can I start work on Tuesday?

    IH: You're projecting that this alumina tube will produce at least a COP of four. You know, we're a lot more interested in that early design you allowed Dr. Levi to test that was alleged to basically self sustain for eighteen hours, except for the power going into the control box. That would be a lot more convincing to us. If it truly continues to produce power for many hours with near zero input, that would be worth a fortune for us. We'd work out fair compensation for you.

    Rossi: But this new system is so much better? Why go back to that old unstable device? We can measure the heat production of this tube with an IR camera. Why mess around with water flow when we don't have to?

    IH: Andrea, don't you understand the difference between self sustaining for hours and a COP of 4? We are wanting these tests to confirm the reality of your technology. A self sustaining reactor could make that happen much more easily than one that does not. And if we avoid phase change and don't worry about producing steam, measuring the increase in temperature of a flow of water isn't impractical. As long as we accurately measure the temperature and flow of input water from a tank with stirrers to remove thermal gradients and carefully measure the output as well, the test should be pretty convincing. The electrical input can be measured with the same power monitors you're using now. To double check that the total quantity of water was correct, we can even collect and store the output water.

    Rossi: That device was the past; the hot cat is the future. I don't want to go back to it.

    IH: I advise you to reconsider. You have been claiming to everyone since you went public with your technology that your devices can self sustain for many hours at a time between reinvigorations. If you want our relationship to continue, this is something we insist on seeing and measuring. With a self sustaining device producing a minimum of 15 kW for 18 hours with no significant input, we'll have the evidence we need to move forward and compensate you generously!

    Rossi: Didn't you hear what I told you, that device was unsafe! It nearly spiked to an output of 130kW for a period of time. If I didn't tell Dr. Levi to very carefully vent some hydrogen, it could have melted down and injuries could have happened! I'm not willing to risk anyone's health or well being.

    IH: We're willing to build an advanced safety system to monitor it remotely. We'll conduct the test in a pit lined with concrete with blast walls all around. I can make a call right now and have a robot shipped who can approach the reactor and make any adjustments we require while the test is being conducted. No human will need to go near it while the test is being conducted.

    Rossi: I'm simply not interested.

    IH: Then we're no longer interested in doing business with you. Best wishes for you and your technology. Please never call us again. Since you won't show us your most convincing experiment, we must assume your technology doesn't work afterall.

    Rossi: But a COP of 4 is amazing! It beats hot fusion!

    IH: Self sustain is far better. If you really had it, then you would be willing to show it to us. Goodbye.

  • Sorry MrSS - no need to dabble in the hypothetical.

    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 unknown.

  • Hello Dewey,

    Do you happen to know if the nickel in the fuel mix was pre-hydrogenated by any means before it was inserted into the fuel tube?

  • Dewey,

    If it was high emittance paint, it won't do a whole lot to the camera readings (as adjusted to ε around 0.95), but would do weird things to the total power compared to using the alumina total emissivity.

    Should run cooler, overall, than plain alumina, being a more effective radiator.

    There are not a lot of high emittance paints/coatings available in off-white, but there are a few. (Visible color is a weak indicator of IR emissivity).

  • The Cotronics Durapot 810 is listed as being "tan" colored.

    I notice that the rods seem to be tan, but not so the reactor, except in a patch on the RH side in the Lugano report photo with the scale.

    Then there is problem is that if a high emittance paint was used, the total hemispherical emissivity will go up from around 0.4 to probably close to 0.8, making a COP close to 2 even with around 800°C with the camera emissivity adjusted to 0.95 .

    Unless perhaps the Lugano device was painted with nearly pure alumina... explaining why it is white. An alumina coating would have to be thick, though, to have much effect on emissivity. At least 1.5 mm of alumina to become the dominant spectral emission source (optically thick enough), which seems not to be the case.

  • @Dewey,

    The Lugano reactors were made by IH, but never pre-tested prior to providing them to the Swedes? Not even the ON/OFF mode? Seems kind of curious to provide such a mode if never tested before-hand by IH.

  • quotes are from rb0. #1509 above. I'm quoting nearly all of it.

    rb0 - if you'd rather conduct a dialog in private with TC himself you could probably find his e-mail. He stated here that he e-mailed the Lugano authors with an early draft of his correction before going public. If not I bet the admins here can relay messages. When here TC always seemed willing to discuss matters, in private or public.


    In the Lugano paper itself is demonstrated that Allumina pipes have an emissivity much lower then the BB.

    In that case it was possible for the group of scientists to measure the actual emissivity using reference dots.

    The value obtained was compatible with the value of the total emissivity found in literature for pure Alumina the temperature of the pipes.

    This is distraction tactics. No-one real is disputing the total emissivity figures in the Lugano report. TC uses them. They may not be precisely accurate, but are a decent approximation.


    There was at least another version around.

    The version you are linking looks well printed..... but completely ill based.

    No. There was not another version of the TC paper. Maybe you are confusing it with the Bob Higgins paper (which had pictures)? TC referenced Bob but did not follow him because Bob leaves out the key issue (he actually has a gap in his logic where the issue lies).


    You can't do a calculus like TC (? is the real author ) propose.

    The TC paper does that (numerical integration). I can lead you through the theory, of the numerical code that does it, if you like? You saying "it cannot be done" when it has been done with the details included in the TC paper is absurd.


    First all the argument of the band emissivity is wrong ( Paradigmoia I have tried to explain that to you many times )

    P and I agree 100%. And we have both educated you until you have gone away because unable to sustain a connected logical argument on the matter. Unfortunately the half-life of Forum retention of technical details is pretty small and maybe we need to redo this now. P has understandably lost patience - he has been doing the repeat explaining for quite a while.

    I'll happily do this now. It is blindingly obvious that an IR camera that estimates temperature from IR output sensed in a specific band must depend on the emissivity in that band, not the emissivity in other bands. Since emissivity depends on spectral frequency you cannot work out other bands from the Optris band. Therefore the total emissivity (integrated over all frequencies and Planck curve for given temperature) cannot be enough. What do we need....? 1...2...3...

    We need the band emissivity


    Second even if you would like to do so you would have to consider the actual band sensitivity of the camera vs wave length (i.e. light "color" in IR band ), that is not a flat ( constant ) function and depends on optics and sensor ( in fact each pixel is different ).

    Good, now we are near to agreement. Yes, you need to consider the camera bolometer spectral characteristics. Do we need this exactly? Well, TC tried various spectra over the 8-13um range and you do get a difference in results, but it is not very large. That is because over most of this range Al2O3 has a high spectral emissivity so how this is weighted by the camera has a relatively small effect, especially when you include Planck weighting, I can lead you through the numerical calcs, or, if you have Python 2.7, You could try the code yourself, and see what happens with different assumptions about Optris non-flat sensitivity. TC used (in absense of other data) a constant value close enough to the generic IR bolometer spectral sensitivity curves referenced by Bob Higgins [1]. This is undoubtedly a source of error but for the reason above not large error. In any case your point here (correct, of all your many points the one I agree with) shows that the Levi et al method was clearly wrong.



    I really think that diffusing this kind of false information could be against law in that case because of the ongoing trial, and I presume that any scientist who may have read that paper had thrown it in the bin in just few seconds.

    Scientific disagreement is not against the law. Sometimes things are written that are just wrong, as in the original Lugano calculations. I would not say those authors have committed any crime and while persisting in wrong views is annoying it is unfortunately commonplace. We can all, when we do not engage in careful dialog with contrary views, be guilty of it.

    I am offering to defend every sentence of the TC report (with the exception of the one very minor mistake).

    Regards, THH

    Edited once, last by THHuxleynew: correct typos and one error ().

  • Para - the reactor was painted before the test.

    That is interesting! This is the Lugano reactor? Or the earlier Ferrara one which was painted black? if the paint is black body in the IR wavelength the TC adjusted temp calcs stay the same but maybe the output power changes.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Then there is problem is that if a high emittance paint was used, the total hemispherical emissivity will go up from around 0.4 to probably close to 0.8, making a COP close to 2 even with around 800°C with the camera emissivity adjusted to 0.95 .

    Agreed. If high emissivity and optically thick we would have COP=2! Redemption of the Lugano authors in sight? Except they claimed no paint and pure alumina surface.


    • Official Post

    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 unknown


    I think you may be mixing something up. Levi and team conducted 2 tests: Ferrara (March 2013), and Lugano in 2014. Actually there was another Ferrara in Dec 2012, but only Levi/Rossi were present and the Hotcat reportedly melted. Anyways, it was the Hotcat in the March 2013 Ferrara test that was painted, so doubtful IH built it as this took place *before* the IH/Rossi Validation Test on April 30 2013. Here is the wording from Levi's report:

    The outer surface of the E-Cat HT2 and one side of the flange are coated with black paint, different from that used for the previous test. The emissivity of this coating, a Macota® enamel paint capable of withstanding temperatures up to 800°C, is not known; moreover, it was not sprayed uniformly on the device,

    I looked through the Lugano report, and did not see anything about painting. In fact, Levi sent out a sample of the housing for analysis after the test was completed, and it came back 99% alumina. This is from the Lugano report:

    In the course of the year following the previous tests, the E-Cat’s technology was transferred to Industrial Heat LLC, United States, where it was replicated and improved. The present E-Cat reactor is therefore an improved version running at higher temperature than the one used in the March 2013 experiment.
    Therefore, in the course of the test, we set the camera software to emissivity values valid for several alumina thermal ranges. However, in order to acquire from the literature a more adequate emissivity vs. temperature trend, it was necessary to know some of the characteristics of the material the reactor was made of, such as its composition and degree of purity. For this purpose, upon completion of the test, we took a sample of the material constituting the reactor; subsequently, Prof. Ennio Bonetti (Bologna) subjected it to X-Ray spectroscopy. The results confirmed that it was indeed alumina, with a purity of at least 99%.

    An interesting aside for IHFB....In reading the Ferrara report, I noticed this description about that "on/off switch" the Lugano team failed to use:

    In the ON/OFF phase, the resistor coils were powered up and powered down by the control system at
    observed regular intervals of about two minutes for the ON state and four minutes for the OFF
    state. This operating mode was kept more or less unchanged for all the remaining hours of the
    test. During the OFF state, it was possible to observe – by means of the video displays connected
    to the IR cameras (see below) – that the temperature of the device continued to rise for a
    limited amount of time

  • Shane - no confusion. Off-white paint. We have the brand and product number.

    We also have the same batch of Durapot 810 and a leftover virgin reactor from that production run. Planet Rossi may hear more about that later.

    No comment on Levi having the material sample tested and coming back with 99% alumina except....say no more say no more.

  • I don't doubt the Bologna professors analysis of the material he rcvd and tested but it certainly was not a sample of the Durapot 810 Lugano reactor material which was / is between 75% and 85% alumina based cement. This one is not hard folks.

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.