Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)
-
-
You can distinguish between the IR temperature measurement, which Paradigmnoia and everyone else except Randombit0 understands was wrongly done in Lugano, and the output power measurement.
You claim there could be some additional non-grey-body emission from the reactor core.
If so that would increase power output above that calculated, but it would not alter the temperature measurement unless it was in the IR band. In that case it would make the IR temperature measurement too high, and therefore the real temperature even lower.
So your additional evidence (which I and others disagree with you about) of a known higher core temperature due to Ni melting actually contradicts this explanation. The higher core temperature, if sustained and therefore relevant to average power budget, would inevitably lead to higher surface temperature which would be measured higher by the IR camera regardless of the additional non-grey-body emission. If that happened to be in IR band the effect would be in the opposite direction to what you claim!
Regards,
THH -
Slightly off topic, I found another example of a "contributor" to JoNP that signed off as AR...
ooooo! share the wealth! ....As long as Rossi is a "LENR" figure, his behavior is relevant. Nobody is suggesting that Rossi should go to jail for using sock puppets, or that his socks should be banned.
I have a number of socks on WikiMedia Foundation wikis. Almost all were disclosed from the beginning. I created some more as tests and for backup, but never used them for anything remotely disruptive (except insofar as any multiple account creation is ipso facto disruptive, except that insiders get away with it all the time, so "socking" is a status offense, only sanctioned if the user is blocked or banned.) Those socks were never discovered. The only discovered sock was EnergyNeutral, which was a quite open test of the system, revealing what I had suspected: arbitrators were acting as executives to enforce their own positions. The old policies restricting checkuser had been defacto abandoned. EnergyNeutral was not disruptive, was not accused of any disruptive behavior other than Being Abd. And I had not attempted to conceal the IP evidence, which I certainly knew how to do, having worked on sock investigation and policy enforcement. EnergyNeutral violated my "community ban" on cold fusion, but highly conservatively, I was not taking a pro-LENR stance with that account, just moving the Energy Catalyzer article, a little, toward neutrality and policy compliance, it was a mess.
What is called doxxing, normally, is highly offensive, generally seeking to cause harm. However, on WMF wikis, revealing the true identity of an anonymous account is allowed where there is a possibility of a conflict of interest. The WMF TOS requires disclosure of conflict of interest. The world is is a different place when rules are taken literally and without regard for the purposes of the rules.
-
If so that would increase power output above that calculated, but it would not alter the temperature measurement unless it was in the IR band. In that case it would make the IR temperature measurement too high, and therefore the real temperature even lower.
@THH: I guess you very well understand Axils point, but as usually try to distort the facts.
If the Axil-radiation spectrum lays in the visible part, then of course your (THHC's) Wattage assumptions are to low. But that's the reason why one should use closed calorimetric systems. Not even a dummy run at high T could simulate this behavior, as the optical behavior of the fuel and the heating could be different...
-
Heat is (counter-intuitively, or ironically) is the CF signature,
So far, yes, with an exception that I'll give. Other than that exception, there is no confirmed product of cold fusion, so far, at significant levels compared to the heat.The exception is that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, particularly with electrochemical experiments with palladium deuteride, generates helium with the heat, with the ratio being consistent within experimental error, so far, with the theoretical value for deuterium to helium conversion if there is no energy leakage or loss of helium. (i.e., if significant energy were lost with, say, neutrino emissions, which would be difficult to measure, this would lower the heat/helium ratio.)
With nickel hydride, no product has yet been correlated with reported heat. I consider nickel hydride reactions to still be unconfirmed, but there are enough reports that they are certainly worth investigation. That investigation, if we want to learn from history, should become systematic, so that the results of experiments can be compared, instead of every experiment being more or less unique, with only some overall resemblance.
Once there is a protocol that generates heat with reasonable reliability (this could be under fifty percent of the time), and on a scale that we might expect an ash to be measurable, then efforts should be directed to identifying the ash, because a correlation with an ash, if confirmed, will nail the matter, as it has with palladium deuteride.
Ash identification may or may not be experimentally useful. If it is difficult to measure, it isn't terribly useful to know, other than for the basic issue of reality of the effect, and, later, for theory development. Other work should proceed to identify any other correlated characteristics, and they need not be "nuclear events" as such. For example, is sound generated when heat is being produced? What about low energy X-rays? Any other radiation or signal? Having accessory indicators of the reaction could speed up research.
(Much cold fusion research was diverted and confused by "nuclear" results, like transmutations and neutrons. This was considered "proof" of nuclear reaction, but look at the history. It did not work that way, and the basic reason is that those results were never well-correlated and confirmed with the major signature, heat. The existence of some anomaly, something unexplained, without correlations, is very weak evidence of anything other than something possibly interesting to investigate further.)
-
Quote
@THH: I guess you very well understand Axils point, but as usually try to distort the facts.
If the Axil-radiation spectrum lays in the visible part, then of course your (THH's) Wattage assumptions are to low. But that's the reason why one should use closed calorimetric systems. Not even a dummy run at high T could simulate this behavior, as the optical behavior of the fuel and the heating could be different...
I do think you are not carefully reading my posts.
Axil has made two points:
(1) molten nickel means the temperature must have been similar to that claimed in the report (1400C) rather than that claimed in the various reanalyses (800C).
(2) He has on theoretical grounds predicted this non-grey-body additional light output.He linked these two points, bringing forward (2) as evidence for (1) and (in the context) implicitly claiming that (2) would change the IR measurement.
I was pointing out that (2) changes the IR measurement the wrong way, or not at all (if visible) so that the temperature in the Lugano report stays much too high for the reported measurements. Therefore the linkage, and the implicit claim, are wrong. Since the IR measurements prove that the body temperature was not so very high, the sintered Nickel cannot imply 1400C as axil claims and this is not evidence for his "super-light" theory.
I also agreed that non-grey-body light outside the IR spectrum - at frequencies where Al2O3 is transparent - could potentially result in an unknown and unmeasured higher COP because it would increase power output independent of temperature.
In what way is that distorting facts?
-
In what way is that distorting facts?
Simple. Define "fact" as "what I believe," and then whatever anyone else writes that appears to conflict with what I believe is "distorting facts."I see not the slightest trace of intention to distort in any of the writings of THH and Paradigmnoia. Both are operating, at least in some ways, as classic skeptics: open-minded, willing to consider what might seem impossible from some points of view, willing to discuss and investigate and to consider counter-arguments. I.e., they do not appear to be pseudoskeptics. They are, rather, what LENR needs: genuine skeptics, which were in short supply for a time. Genuine skeptics are a bridge to the mainstream, and we need the mainstream, if we want to move forward.
-
If the outside surface temperature of the Lugano reactor was really 1400°C on average what would the internal temperature possibly be?
If the heat source is internal, as we assume (from the heating coils or a reaction inside the fuel tube), the internal temperature must be much higher than the external. I am sure that MFMP has not run a calibration with internal heating that took external temperature to 1400, but at lower temperatures, the heat resistance of the alumina would be measurable so some temperature differential could be estimated.This was immediately visible with the Lugano report. The external temperature of 1400 C was preposterous, unless we posit massive melting iniside, including the destruction of the internal thermocouple and probably the heating coils as well, not to mention melting the nickel. Something was obviously off.
There is now extensive re-analysis, but this is clear: Lugano was never formally published under review. Normally, when a report is published in a reviewed journal, responses and questions will be published there as well, or sometimes elsewhere, and the authors are invited to comment. At this point, with the Lugano report subject to such wide criticism, with glaring defects that have not been addressed (and that probably are irremediable), the Lugano report is practically useless. There may be, from the MFMP analysis, some excess heat, but the level is low enough and artifacts abound, there is not just one to consider! It is far from the robust report that it appeared to be at first, if one squinted.
-
If you get the Lugano Report published anywhere that allows pre-published documents - as it would have to - I bet I could get the TC comment, or something similar, which is public domain, published with it. The quality is clearly high enough and the only issue is whether the report being commented on is of any interest. I think many reviewers would reckon the report of no interest, and therefore corrections to it equally of no interest.
-
Lugano was never formally published under review.
@Abd: It's now under review of the US patent office... (submitted IH patent)
This may explain the strange history of the report!
But there is one final question: Did IH choose the group, who was responsible for this fiasco ??
I did my personal investigations some days before the Lugano experiment started and wondered, why they nominated a bunch of out of the field "soft promis" as so called experts. Thus I think IH has to explain ...
-
(1) molten nickel means the temperature must have been similar to that claimed in the report (1400C) rather than that claimed in the various reanalyses (800C).
Another problem with this point is that the nickel in the SEM images in the Lugano report is not really melted; it's a bit sintered. The melted nickel meme has been brought up many times, and it's been pointed out several times as well that the nickel was not melted. -
If the outside surface temperature of the Lugano reactor was really 1400°C on average what would the internal temperature possibly be?
This is a very good question with a complex answer.
Based on the geometry of the Lugano device, I estimate that about 1550 C would be the core temperature of the main tube section when the outside is 1400 C. That is based more on experience than math. It could be modeled with difficulty.(Using 1.2 cm as the heater coil diameter, I get about 1660°C at the heater wire location to get the surface to 1400°C. This does not require the heater wires to be powered to this level, just that is the temperature where they are. This is based on a very simple model of same heat output of about 3000 W but with a reduced diameter).
-
@axil,
Heat is heat. It shows up in the IR band.
It takes a ridiculous amount of energy in any other EM band to make heat.
Heat is (counter-intuitively, or ironically) is the CF signature,
Like it or or lump it.Melted nickel is melted nickel.
It takes 1450C in the reactor core to melt nickel. Like it or lump it.
-
Melted nickel is melted nickel.
It takes 1450C in the reactor core to melt nickel. Like it or lump it.
Lump it. I mean that literally; the material is lumped together. It is sintered, not melted. Sintering increases and it happens at lower temperatures in hot hydrogen gas. This has been a big problem with the palladium nanoparticle experiments. The powder sinters together, reducing surface area and loading. No one claims these experiments produce temperatures high enough to melt the material, but they are hot enough to sinter. Takahashi and others have noted this, and they are working on various methods to prevent it. -
Lump it. I mean that literally; the material is lumped together. It is sintered, not melted. Sintering increases and it happens at lower temperatures in hot hydrogen gas. This has been a big problem with the palladium nanoparticle experiments. The powder sinters together, reducing surface area and loading. No one claims these experiments produce temperatures high enough to melt the material, but they are hot enough to sinter. Takahashi and others have noted this, and they are working on various methods to prevent it.The 1000 micron ash particle shown on page 45 of the Lugano report was not sintered, it was solid.
The largest fuel particle was 100 microns. sintering required co-location so that the material coming together does not move. It would take tens of the largest widely dispersed fuel particles to construct that 1000 micron ash particle. The conclusion is that nickel FLOWED together in a MELT from liquid nickel and was not sintered together from a random collection of very close co-located fuel particles.
In addition, that ash particle was pure NI62. There were no iron or aluminum impurities captured by a localized sintering process. That particle was maintained in a liquid state for a very long period of time in order to achieve that level of perfect purity.
-
The largest fuel particle was 100 microns. sintering required co-location so that the material coming together does not move. It would take tens of the largest widely dispersed fuel particles to construct that 1000 micron ash particle. The conclusion is that nickel FLOWED together in a MELT from liquid nickel and was not sintered together from a random collection of very close co-located fuel particles.
In addition, that ash particle was pure NI62. There were no iron or aluminum impurities captured by a localized sintering process. That particle was maintained in a liquid state for a very long period of time in order to achieve that level of perfect purity.
axil: This could have been as short and very local runaway, just mere luck.
Such things are the reason why true professional should undertake such experiments and not self called experts... Experts would check the whole fuel/ash load and would make all kind of tests not just the ones IH possibly would like to see...
-
axil: This could have been as short and very local runaway, just mere luck.
Such things are the reason why true professional should undertake such experiments and not self called experts... Experts would check the whole fuel/ash load and would make all kind of tests not just the ones IH possibly would like to see...
This is what Rossi did. He undertook to discover if a LENR reaction could exist when the substrate became liquid. Rossi found that a LENR reaction could continue even when the metal melted. The nuclear active environment was not connected to the metal, but could be freed from the metal when the metal melted. The NAE was a free floating heat resistant entity.
This NAE is metalized hydride that persists after its formation in metal cavities.
-
The 1000 micron ash particle shown on page 45 of the Lugano report was not sintered, it was solid.
How do you know this? It sometimes takes an expert to distinguish between sintered and solid melted materials, according to Takahashi and others.The largest fuel particle was 100 microns. sintering required co-location so that the material coming together does not move. It would take tens of the largest widely dispersed fuel particles to construct that 1000 micron ash particle.
I do not know what you mean by "co-location." Several particles that are already touching come together into a single lump. They are not dispersed to start with. They are right there together. It takes only heat and pressure, and not much pressure.Read about sintering as a method of industrial production for details. Machine parts made with this method are pressed together at moderate pressures. They form a single body, which in some cases is stronger than melted and cast metal parts.
-
The Lugano report contains very detailed information about the fuel and ash which serves to be the most exact witness to what happened to the reactor. Not only did the gigantic NI62 nickel particle prove out to be pure but also the large silicon oxide ash particles were essentially pure. Such evidence points to a strange and hard to imagine distillation process rather that a sintering of disparate elements. The process of sintering would have combined the many differing ash products together in an amalgam combined with the iron oxide and aluminum oxide fuel particles.
The sintering process does not involve a mechanism to separate the various particle types into such pure fractions. What mysterious vaporous purification process can crystallize such a perfect distillation and separation of pure elements and components is yet to be explained but it is a sure thing that the process has nothing to do with sintering. For all the world, it looks like the various elements that comprised the fuel load were attracted to each other in a condinsation process and recombined in crystalline perfection. It seems like the elements of the fuel load were held in a vaporous state until the core was cooled. It is the first time that I have seen such a process at play and it serves once again to confound us as another mystery of the LENR reaction.
-
Such evidence points to a strange and hard to imagine distillation process rather that a sintering of disparate elements.
Oh come now. There is nothing strange about it. It's just another Rossi "magnificence" or whatever he calls his stupid fraudulent tricks. You don't actually believe those results, do you?
