Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

  • Another interesting note about the Lugano device is the three coils. That effectively reduces the lengthwise expansion of each wire to 1/3 of what one continuous coil wire would want to do. With thick wire like 15 - 18 Ga this can be quite a bit of strain developed in a captive (cemented) coil. If the coil cannot expand lengthwise, it will expand in diameter instead. This breaks the ceramic eventually. Matching expansion rates can mitigate some of this, but with several hundred degree C temperature gradients along the length and from core to outside, this is harder done than said.

  • Well, more bad news for the Lugano report...um.. to report.

    Data from the new and old Cylinders show that Durapot 810 total emissivity varies from idealized pure alumina as depicted in a Plot 1, Lugano report. Worse is that the normal variation range of pure alumina total emissivity vs temperature is also fairly broad. The values used for Plot 1 do seem be about the mean of the normal variation range, based on examination of several data sets for total emissivity of alumina.

    Uncured (not baked above 1000 C) Durapot 810 has a different IR camera band emissivity from idealized pure alumina also, but does tend towards the ideal after significant heating. The LWIR emissivity of uncured Durapot 810 ranges from 0.85 to 0.87. The fully cured Durapot 810 LWIR emissivity is 0.93 to 0.96 in the same temperature range.


    Fully cured Durapot 810 does have a total emissivity similar to the values shown in Plot 1, but the cooler end of the temperature range appears to require a slightly higher total emissivity than Plot 1, while the high end of the temperature range appears to require a slightly lower total emissivity than Plot 1 shows. At around 800 C, the Plot 1 values seem to be very close, if not the same, as fully cured Durapot 810 requires.


    The under-cured Durapot 810 appears to need a lower total emissivity than Plot 1 shows across the entire temperature range. Without adjustments, the under-cured Cylinder2 reports a COP of around 1.15 - 1.2 using the total emissivity from Plot 1 for radiant power calculations. This is applicable to all instances where the Cylinder has not exceeded 850 C (actual) for a significant time period (hours), and should apply to anything else made of Durapot 810. I am uncertain, but perhaps longer periods of fairly high temperature (circa 800 C) may be equivalent to shorter periods of extreme temperature (> 1000 C) for obtaining the final cured state. (This might partly explain why the Lugano report Row 1 power summary data is a bit peculiar compared to the rest of the active runs).


    So the thermal history of the Lugano device before it was used for the Dummy run is critically important. (What sort of heat curing history was the device subjected to before use?)

    The use of high temperature paint, whether alumina or zirconia-based, is also important, as is when it was applied.


    Therefore the Lugano Dummy may not be a reliable comparison, even to itself, to a post-long-term heated Lugano device.

  • Well, more bad news for the Lugano report...um.. to report.


    That bad news is generated by yourself. Not by the Lugano team in their report.

    In trying to explain that the Lugano measurements where faulty you are asserting that the cast was not cured.

    You have no proof of this and are not supporting it by evidence.

    It is also very unlikely

    Asserting things in this way can be done to any scientific report in order to "prove" that a report was bad.


    If you just had reported that not curing can influence the dummy run results, then I would fully agree with you.

    Stating that this is bad news without proof that it happened in order to proof your believe that the Lugano report as faulty goes for me a way too far.

    Nevertheless I respect your opinion/believe that the report was wrong, which as you know based on my own calculations, differs from yours.

    I have however no problem with people having other opinions or coming to other conclusions.

    Let's respect each other and keep to the facts without adding assertions, especially in a technical thread as this.

  • Was the Lugano device made of Durapot 810 like the patent application and Dewey claim?

    Was the Lugano device made of 99%+ alumina as the report claims?

    Was the Lugano device painted in Aremco 634-ZO as Dewey claims, and suggested directly to the Professors in a an email reprinted in the Court documents?

    Why do the chips of the reactor for testing shown in the report look like long thin shavings, and not rough crumbles and dust scraped from a ridge of reactor made of ceramic materials?

    Was the device cured at 225 F as suggested by the Durapot instructions?

    Was the device post-cured at higher temperatures?

    Did the Lugano device turn an ugly grey upon heating?

    Is there chipped paint in images of the Lugano device?

    Were there two devices used, one of which broke, as claimed by Darden in his summary, rather than feared that could break as suggested in the Lugano report? Did the dummy break?


  • There are a lot unknowns

    Since they are unknown we can not conclude if they where bad or not for the conclusions made.

  • There are a lot unknowns

    Since they are unknown we can not conclude if they where bad or not for the conclusions made.


    All serious unknowns are bad for something that is characterizing a Null device.


    On the other hand, I haven't yet tried to recalculate the dummy with a lower LWIR emissivity, using the reiterative values as a start point. Note that the drop in LWIR E should affect the total emissivity also, since LWIR is the primary emissive part of the total IR spectrum for alumina-like materials.

    .

  • Very easy, too easy to conclude as Jed Rothwell, too fashion finally to kill Rossi again.

    There are really very important details inside Ecat HT patent that nobody saw because not understood.

    No one has given a convincing explanation about cat / mouse concept, for example so it couldn't exist.

    I won't give other explanations but it's in connection with S Brink thoughts or last Google patent.

  • Very easy, too easy to conclude as Jed Rothwell, too fashion finally to kill Rossi again.

    There are really very important details inside Ecat HT patent that nobody saw because not understood.


    The issue here is not what may be in the Ecat HT. The issue is that what should be a null device seems to produce heat, and it is very difficult to understand what is going on with it. The calorimetry is problematic. It is too complicated. Even if there is something in the Ecat HT patent that no one understands, or unknown charactoristics in the cell, there should be nothing in a control test that no one understands. That's not a control!

  • The issue here is not what may be in the Ecat HT. The issue is that what should be a null device seems to produce heat, and it is very difficult to understand what is going on with it. The calorimetry is problematic. It is too complicated. Even if there is something in the Ecat HT patent that no one understands, or unknown charactoristics in the cell, there should be nothing in a control test that no one understands. That's not a control!

    Your comments are full of good sense....especially if reader remains a foreigner in Lenr field therefore when you understand how IH cleverly bypass Rossi's patent, I laugh so much that I'm going to choke :)

  • All serious unknowns are bad for something that is characterizing a Null device.


    On the other hand, I haven't yet tried to recalculate the dummy with a lower LWIR emissivity, using the reiterative values as a start point. Note that the drop in LWIR E should affect the total emissivity also, since LWIR is the primary emissive part of the total IR spectrum for alumina-like materials.

    .

    I will still be in Italy for about another week.

    When back I want to follow some leads I have found about the thermal conductivity of castables.

    Hope that this will result in bringing the internal temperatures of my simulations more in line with those measured on your rods and also in a better understanding of what is the main factor what determines the thermal conductivity.


    However still a lot of other activities on my list.

    So it may be a while before there is anything to report.


    In the meantime looking forward to see recalculations based on lower LWIR emissivities.

  • Thermal conductivity of refractories and Alumina castables (Such as Durapot 810)



    Research on the effect of porosity on the thermal conductivity of Aluminum oxide castables (And refractories) as a function of temperature is published in several papers.

    I was hopefull that this would help us in determining the thermal conductivity of Durapot and other Alumina castables.

    However I have to confess that after investigating the published information, applying formulas given and using them to do thermal simulations that results much differ from one approach to another.

    Nevertheless there is a general trend that is shown in the following figure.


    This figure shows the dependency of the thermal conductivity refractories and alumina castables as a function of the density for several temperatures



    For larger densities (low porosity) the thermal conductivity is dependent on the temperature and decreases with increasing temperatures following a somewhat exponential decreasing curve.

    For low densities there is a limited dependence of the temperature on the thermal conductivity, resulting in a (slightly) decreasing almost linear line.


    Another figure showing the dependence of the inverse of the thermal conductivity as a function of Alumina density (1 - porosity) is shown in the next figure.


    In the figure for different densities the dependence of the inverse thermal conductivity as a function of temperature is shown. For each density the relationship can be approximated by a straigth line, meaning that the thermal conductivity is following a somewhat 1/x relationship. Otherwise stated, the curve is indeed a continuously decreasing one.



    But again we note that curves and formula's given in different papers shows large differences between them and are often only usefull in a limited temperature range.

    Nevertheless I tried to propose a possible curve which can be used for Durapot 810.

    I started with the reported conductivity of Durapot 810 as given by Cotronics.

    They state a value of 15 BTU∙in/h∙ft²∙°F which equals 2.16 W/m∙K.

    For Alumina powder a value of .15 W/m∙K was found in literature, much lower then the value stated by Cotronics.

    This means that the value given is not the value of the Durapot powder, but must most likely either the value at room temperature or the average value of casted Durapot..


    Simulating on Para's rod showed that in order to get near the central temperature value reported, that for a central outside temperature of 720 degree C at a power setting of 189 Watt, a much lower value instead of 2.16 (about 1.5) for the thermal condcutivity was needed.

    This means that most likely the value of 2.16 W/m∙K specified by Cotronics is the value at room temperature and not an average value.

    Since at these low values the curve is expected to be an almost linear line, I then started simulating with a straight curve, starting with a value of 2.16 W/m∙K at room temperature (300 K) and linear decreasing to lower test values at 1600 K.

    Doing this it was found that an end value at 1600K of 1.15 W/m∙K give values close to the value reported for the central temperatures of Para's rod.


    Since published curves have a shape between a linear curve and the 1/x relationship, an exponential curve was made which lies in between.

    The curve created is shown in the following figure.


    Simulating Para's rod with the above curve and a heater power of 189 Watt resulted in a center surface temperature of 719 degree C and an internal center temperature of 804 degree C, the 719 degree C close to the reported 718 degree C measured with the thermocouple.


    It should however be noted that only real thermal concuctivity measurents at different temperatures can confirm the above assumptions about the thermal conductivity behavior of Durapot.