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.




  • Determining Alumina temperature with the Optris when emissivity is set to 1


    As an attachment to this post a small Windows executable is included which calculates

    the {approximate} temperature of an Alumina object from the temperature shown by the Optris

    when the in band emissivity of the Optris is set to 1.

    The input of the program is thus the temperature shown by the Optris for an emissivity setting of 1.

    As a first step, from this temperature a new initial temperature to be used by an iterative

    procedure is calculated and this temperature is shown by the program.
    The program then uses both this initial temperature and the ambient temperature to do an

    iterative procedure in order to calculate the temperature.

    Note that the iterative procedure used by the software program to solve for the temperature

    converges less fast to the final temperature then the one the Lugano testers used.

    (The iterative procedure used by the Lugano testers was not published)


    As an example we use a measured temperature by the Optris of 450.3 degree C, the same as

    the temperature used during the dummy run example iteration in the Lugano report.

    For this temperature the in band emissivty setting used is 0.902

    Ambient temperature is set to 20.8 degree C.

    Setting back the emissivity to 1 then yields a temperature of 420.9 degree C.

    (When an other emissivity setting was used on the Optris, the value for an in band emissivity

    setting of 1 will still be 420.9 degree C if the temperature of the Alumina object measured was

    450.3 degree C.)

    The temperature of 420.9 degree C is then input in the program together with the ambient

    temperature.

    When pressing the calculate button the program will calculate the initial temperature to be

    used by the iteration procedure as 366.6 degree C.

    Using this temperature and the given ambient temperature of 20.8 degree C the program

    then calculates using the iterative procedure the temperature.

    The outcome of this iterative procedure is the original temperature of 450.3 degree C.


    A screen dump of the above example is shown in the following picture.



    The iteration procedure is intended for use at temperatures above 250 degree C

    Between 250 degree C and 1000 degree C the expected error is less then 1 % (degree C)

    with an average error of about 0 (zero) percent.

    For temperatures between 1000 and 1350 degree C the expected error is less then 2 %.

    Below 250 degree C the calculated temperatures become inaccurate.


    This means that if the same (or nearly same) procedure was used during the Lugano

    dummy run, then the iteration could have been used for determining the temperatures

    on the ECAT while for the lower temperature rods an other method (such as using an

    Optris with correct in band emissivity settings) should have been used.


    The program uses for it's iterative procedure only information from the broadband emissivity

    curve of Alumina !



    Note :


    I tested the program om three different computers where it was running without problems.

    That is no guarantee that it will work on your computer

    If it is not working try to install the .net framework version 2 and see if that resolves the problem.

    OptrisTemp.zip

  • Nice work on the program.


    Quote

    This means that if the same (or nearly same) procedure was used during the Lugano

    dummy run, then the iteration could have been used for determining the temperatures

    on the ECAT while for the lower temperature rods an other method (such as using an

    Optris with correct in band emissivity settings) should have been used.


    “The very same process used for the dummy reactor body was used to calculate the power emitted through radiation and convection by the rods.“ - page 18


    “Table 4.The values in the table refer to one of the two sets of three dummy reactor rods. Subscript “u” refers to the uppermost rod of the set, subscript “d” to one of the two lower rods (the same results apply to the second lower rod). Each rod has been divided into 10 areas. For each area, the table indicates, subsequently: assigned emissivity, average temperature, power emitted by radiation, power emitted by convection, the sum of the last two values. The last cell of the table gives the total watts emitted by one whole set of three rods, reckoned by multiplying the results relevant to the lower rod by 2, and adding them to those of the upper rod.” - page 19

    (emphasis mine)


    Quote

    (The iterative procedure used by the Lugano testers was not published)

    “The IR camera was recording past the initial moments during which the dummy reactor was heating up, and up to a point at which it was operating at normal capacity. The file run was then stopped, and an emissivity reference value of 1 was set for each area. As one may see in the first table, for the instant chosen, the mean temperature of Area 5 indicated by the thermal camera's software is = 366.6°C for ε = 1. From the curve (ε vs. T), one can see that, for that mean temperature, the correct emissivity value would be 0.76; the next step is therefore changing the emissivity of area 5 according to this new value. We thus get a new estimate for the mean temperature of the area as 426.6°C, for which, according to the emissivity curve, one should have ε = 0.71. This procedure is continued until one gets a correct matching between emissivity and temperature, which — in the above case of area 5 —yields ε = 0.69 and T = 450.3°C. In order to prove that this method does not depend on the initial emissivity value chosen, Table 2b shows what happens when the initial value of ε has been nominally set at 0.5. As one may see, after a certain number of iterations, the same final result is found. After establishing what emissivity value settings were to be used for each area, we extracted the temperatures relevant to all the 23 hours of the dummy run, and averaged them, obtaining a single final value for each one of them (for Area 5, this was = 450.3°C). This method was applied to all the areas of the dummy reactor, as well as to the rods and to the E-Cat, as we shall see.


    A possible source of error in the calculation of the mean temperatures (and, consequently, in that of emitted power) must be seen in the uncertainty with which one reads the values of curve (ε vs. T). This uncertainty, valued at ± 0.01, was used to calculate the error to be associated with each result. In the case of area 5, for instance, all calculations were first performed for ε = 0.69, then for ε = 0.68 (i.e. ε = 0.69 –0.01), and finally for ε = 0.70 (i.e. ε = 0.69 + 0.01). The difference between the results obtained in the last two cases, compared to the first result, is the percentage error sought. In this manner, temperature fluctuations in each area with time, for which one would have to constantly reset emissivity, are also taken into account. The maximum value reached by area 5 during the whole measurement was equal to 469°C, which would correspond to ε = 0.68, whereas the minimum value was equal to 443°C, which would warrant ε = 0.69. “ - pages 15-16

  • Nice work on the program.


    Thanks


    Quote


    for the instant chosen, the mean temperature of Area 5 indicated by the thermal camera's software is = 366.6°C for ε = 1.


    You may disagree, but personally I suspect that the 366.6 degree C is not read from the thermal camera, but have to agree that the text of the Lugano report suggests otherwise.


    Reason for me to believe this is that a measured temperature of 366.6 degree C with an in band setting of 1 is about equivalent to a real temperature of about 392 degree C with an in band emissivity of 0.895.

    That 392 degree C is way off from the near 450 degree C which the FEM simulations gave and which are about in agreement with the 450 degrees reported in the Lugano report.


    The agreement between the reported 450 degree C and the near same temperature of the simulation is for me reason to believe that the actual temperature must indeed have been 450 degree C and thus not being inflated.


    My conclusion is then that the 366 degree C was not read from the Optris, but obtained in an other way.

    This was a reason for me to see if I could find a procedure almost identical to the one in the Lugano report which could be used outside the Optris.





  • I understand the reasoning behind your attempt with the program. Of course it just emulates the manual operation using Optris software which both of us have already done without much difficulty.

    However if you do not believe the procedure described in the report, then by what basis do you choose what to believe they did, and what they said they did but you do not believe?


    I mean the reported measured data should be real (real values that actually occurred on the measurement devices), the calculations used or procedures used could be flawed but accurately described, and the results therefore problematic, we can still look at the information supplied and attempt to reconcile the data with the flaws and attempt reasonable “repairs” that restore the flawed parts to a true or reasonably true representation of events to match the reality of the conditions at the time of testing. All this must, of course, be self consistent. As soon as ad hoc alternatives are allowed, there is nearly infinite room for inserting our prejudices into the information and a possibility highly distorted version of events is the result.


    One could argue (for example) that the device was never turned on at all, the data was all made up, and the device was painted or lit with LEDs for the photos presented. We both by know by now how to make something look as bright or dim as we want against the background using Optris software, etc..

  • Paradigmnoia


    I understand the reasoning behind your attempt with the program.

    Of course it just emulates the manual operation using Optris software which both of us have already done without much difficulty.


    No, of course it does not emulate the Optris software.

    The procedure used in the software program is totally different.


    We have already seen that iterating with the Optris software gives different temperature values then reported.

    So it makes no sense to emulate the Optris in a software program which is intended to show the real temperature from the Optris temperature with an in band emissivitty setting of 1.



    However if you do not believe the procedure described in the report, then by what basis do you choose what to believe they did, and what they said they did but you do not believe?

    As outlined in my previous post, the FEM simulation and the reported temperature almost match.

    However it does not mach the real temperature based on the reported 366.6 degree C if we assume inflated temperatures.

    So it must be something else, not based on believe but based on these facts.

    That something else does not make me to choose from possible solutions what they did.

    And I am not choosing from possible options what they did.

    The only thing I am doing is trying to find possible alternative solutions which largely match with what was written in the Lugano report and match the calculations and simulations.

    If that matches they are possible alternative explanations for the found inconsistancies.



    I mean the reported measured data should be real (real values that actually occurred on the measurement devices), the calculations used or procedures used could be flawed but accurately described, and the results therefore problematic, we can still look at the information supplied and attempt to reconcile the data with the flaws and attempt reasonable “repairs” that restore the flawed parts to a true or reasonably true representation of events to match the reality of the conditions at the time of testing. All this must, of course, be self consistent.


    I agree that everything should be consistent.

    The problem with assuming that the temperatures in the report where inflated is that it is not consistent with simulations, calculations, power distributions, iterating with Optris software.



    As soon as ad hoc alternatives are allowed, there is nearly infinite room for inserting our prejudices into the information and a possibility highly distorted version of events is the result.


    These alternatives are not ad hoc.

    It is based on the fact that the data in the report is not consistent with the assumption that temperatures where inflated and I certainly have no prejudice.

    What you call prejudice is my opinion based on the outcome of simulations, calculations.

    If they had shown me that inflated temperatures where reported, then I would accept that.

    However it turns out that the calculations and simulations shown no indication of inflated temperatures, just the oposite.


    But I am interested if you can provide me with consistent calculations that my opinion is not correct.

    Why not start with stating what is wrong with my conclusion in my previous post #677 ?



    One could argue (for example) that the device was never turned on at all, the data was all made up, and the device was painted or lit with LEDs for the photos presented. We both by know by now how to make something look as bright or dim as we want against the background using Optris software, etc..


    Asserting that would look like arguing with a prejudice.