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


  • This is an interesting point. The first thing I'd say is that the difference, as you point out, as not at all in the grand scheme of things significant. As such perhaps TC would have been well advised to make no correction at all, and not open up this can of worms.


    The second thing is that I think TC was at least partly correct on this one matter: although it is not simple to see why.


    The camera sofware will (true) compensate so that black bodies have the correct temperature. However the only thing they have to go by is the integrated response from the bolometer (it is a single frequency detector - unlike some IR cameras that measure two distinct frequencies - using different filters, or different sensors - and therefore can do better).


    So the integral of the bolometer reponse and the material grey-body response is needed: it gives the camera output. This is then compared with the bolometer response integrated over a BB spectrum curve _at the estimated temperature_. So, in fact, TC is partly correct, but to be more precise an extra correction is needed where the bolometer output is interpreted as a BB signal of a given temperature integrated over the bolometer response and the temperature adjusted to match the output. It is not (I think) correct that this second correction is correctly made simply by leaving out the BB component of the bolometer response - even though it might be approximated by that. It would be interesting to see.


    Paradigmnoia's suggestion will give a close approximation to the actual response, because the two effects cancel. But, maybe, it will still be significantly incorrect. What I will give to P however is that given the two simple options, I think on balance I'd choose not to do the BB weighting at all than to do it just once, as TC does.


    One additional reason why over-elaboration here does not much help is that TC only had available a guessed approximation to the bolometer response. Specific sensors are likely to depart from this a bit, and Optris do not (AFAIK) give precise info. Aty least if they do, TC does not reference this, but rather he references Bob Higgins's generic IR bolometer response curve.

  • Indeed the actual bolometer response curve of the Optris, especially since the Lugano version is additionally tuned for high temperatures somehow, is unknown, the exact emissivity is likely impossible to deduce. This leaves a margin of error, assuming we get the rest of the details correct, that could be easily be in the +/- 20 to 50 C range (if not more on the high input part of the test).

  • I will add here, once again, it was my attempt to find an alternate method (spectral radiant power matching at different temperature-emissivities) to test Clarke's position, and at the same time attempt to show Clarke wrong (and therefore that the Lugano reactor was working) that I discovered for myself that Clarke was right, or so close to being right that he was right enough, and Lugano therefore did not work.


    Let me also outline my position.

    Was the conclusion of the Lugano testers that the ECAT worked correct ?

    I don't know.

    Did the Lugano testers exactly do what was written in the report and used broadband emissivities on their Optris or did they wrote things down incorrectly and/or without important additional information missing?

    Again, I don't know

    So can I be 100% sure that we have to take the text in the Lugano report litterally ?

    I can't since I have no answers. But can you give me that proof ?

    If so show it to me so that it will convince me.

    Until I have such proof the only thing I can do is leave all options open and try to get closer to an answer by finding possible errors, correcting them, recalculating and finding new ways to analyse.

    Nevertheless I like the open and fair technical discussions on this thread !


  • Was the conclusion of the Lugano testers that the ECAT worked correct ?

    I don't know.

    Did the Lugano testers exactly do what was written in the report and used broadband emissivities on their Optris or did they wrote things down incorrectly and/or without important additional information missing?

    Again, I don't know

    So can I be 100% sure that we have to take the text in the Lugano report litterally ?

    I can't since I have no answers. But can you give me that proof ?


    So you are saying: we can prove the Lugano testers made big mistakes in what they said they did (and Levi confirmed this mistake to Matt), which show a highly inflated COP. But, because they might have written it down wrong, or done something different from what they wrote in the report, and from what Levi said was correct (and which is provably wrong) you don't know whether their conclusion was correct?


    That is indeed logic from Rossi-world. With such a benchmark of proof I guess all Rossi's tests are good!

  • So you are saying: we can prove the Lugano testers made big mistakes in what they said they did (and Levi confirmed this mistake to Matt), which show a highly inflated COP. But, because they might have written it down wrong, or done something different from what they wrote in the report, and from what Levi said was correct (and which is provably wrong) you don't know whether their conclusion was correct?


    That is indeed logic from Rossi-world. With such a benchmark of proof I guess all Rossi's tests are good!


    I did not say that I can prove that the Lugano testers made big mistakes !

    The only thing I said is that further analyzing can help to get a better understanding of what is the truth.


    But I am interested in Levi's remark to Matt which I don't know. Maybe you can give a link to it.


    As a last remark, I said that I liked the open and fair discussions on this thread.

    Comparing me with Rossi-world is in my opinion not fair !

  • Levi's remark to Mats was reported by Mats but maybe now deleted - Mats has deleted much of the reporting around Lugano. It was discussed here in detail at the time, so may be others can find links here or personally verify. Specifically Levi said, justifying the worst case safety of the Lugano methodology, that even if worst case you set emissivity to 1, the COP would be 2. That is true if you set band and total emissivity to 1, but not if you allow total emissivity separate from, and smaller than, band emissivity. That is the case here, with total=0.5 and band = 1.


    There was then a long and terminally tedious argument with randombit0 here repeating the same misconception (that Optris cameras calculated temperature based on total emissivity).


    I did not say that I can prove that the Lugano testers made big mistakes !


    Ok, apologies. In that case you are ignoring clear (incontrovertible) scientific evidence, posted by P and (occasionally) me here, which is equally something you have in common with Rossi-world. I'll happily take your assertion that you are otherwise separate from them!

  • I think that the reported remark from Levi to Lewan is still on Impossible Invention. I saved the full pages including comments. I have also the post Lugano interview with Hoistad on radio recorded, and the transcript in English. Unfortunately I am away from my laptop for a while so I can't dig these up for at least a week. These things should still exist on the web.

  • Ok, apologies. In that case you are ignoring clear (incontrovertible) scientific evidence, posted by P and (occasionally) me here, which is equally something you have in common with Rossi-world. I'll happily take your assertion that you are otherwise separate from them!


    For your info, I was in the past on ECAT world, but moved here because in my opinion they where not allowing criticism.


  • Not only in your opinion...I was asking Frank Ackland directly, because few of my sarcastic and critic posts on Rossi did not make it through moderation. His response via email was very clear: This ECW forum is not a place to critizize e.g. Rossi and his (fake) test at Doral, it is a place to discuss his Ecat technology and products to come that will save the world...:-(

  • Thomas Clarke's report corrected


    Thomas Clarke, in his report 'Comment on the report “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel” by Levi et al' recalculated the COP value of runs 3 and 12 of the Lugano ECAT test.

    The recalculation assumed that the tester had entered broadband instead of in band emissivities in the Optris thermal camera and his conclusion was that in that case the ECAT did not produce excess energy.

    The recalculation showed indeed that when the Lugano data is recalculated with assumed faulty broadband emissivity settings in the Optris, that the calculated COP values are 1 .

    However both in the Lugano report and Thomas Clarke's report an error was made.
    The error was that for the central finned part of the ECAT the radiated energy was not calculated with the area of the fins and the accompanying view factor to the background. Instead they both used the area of a bare tube without fins.


    An other factor is that the reflection between the fins causes a change in the effective emissivity.

    Thomas Clarke in his report did the right thing and corrected for this. However the view factor he used in his calculation was an estimation.

    In the meantime we have established that the correct view factor between the fins is 0.428.


    For his calulations Thomas Clarke used a software program written in the programming language Python.

    He included that program in his report. This made it possible to correct the program for the fin area error, the view factor to the background and the view factor between the fins and then run the program again.

    The updated Python program with corrections is included as an attachment to this post.

    Results are given in the three tables below.


    In the first table the values are copied from Thomas Clarke's report


    The second table is the data from a rerun of his original published Python program.

    The output of the program gives per simulated Lugano run 9 output values in three groups of three values, each group being equal. The three values within a group give the results for no change in in-band emissivity, for a somewhat lower and for a somewhat higher in-band emissivity. I used the average of both the values with no bias and high bias since the results where then for the rerun close to the reported values in Thomas Clarke's report. As can be seen the values differs slightly from the orignal data published, the reason unknown. I was not able to combine the numbers in any other way that gives the exact same values as presented in Thomas Clarke's report.


    The third table is the calulation with the correction for the fin area and the update of the view factor. As can be seen that calculation gives higher output powers and COP values when compared with the original calculation and the rerun of Thomas Clarke's original code.



    Table II of Thomas Clarke's report


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---Data file---------Input--------Report----------Report---------Real-----------Real

    ---number---------Power-------Output---------COP-------------Output-------COP

    ----------------------------------------Power-----------------------------Power

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---3-------------------755-----------2418-------------3.20------------808------------1.07

    ---12------------------865----------3179--------------3.67-----------921------------1.064

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Table with results of the rerun of the published code


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---Data file---------Input--------Report----------Report---------Real-----------Real

    ---number---------Power-------Output---------COP-------------Output-------COP

    ----------------------------------------Power-----------------------------Power

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---3-------------------755-----------2418------------3.20-------------806----------1.068

    ---12------------------865----------3179-------------3.67-------------926----------1.070

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Table with results of the corrected code for area and view factor


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---Data file---------Input--------Report----------Report---------Real-----------Real

    ---number---------Power-------Output---------COP-------------Output-------COP

    ----------------------------------------Power-----------------------------Power

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---3--------------------755----------2418------------3.20--------------931-----------1.233

    ---12-------------------865----------3179------------3.67------------1079-----------1.247

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Interesting. Has this been applied to correct the dummy also?


    Running his original code gives a COP value of about .75 for the dummy run.

    After applying the corrections the COP of the dummy run is about .85


    But TC had some possible valid arguments that apply to the dummy run.

    These arguments can be found as comments in the Python code.

    I personally did not investigate these comments.

  • LDM,


    Thank you for the work you put into this. Your adjusted Lugano COP puts it in line with what Higgins and MFMP found. Small, but still something. BEC reports about the same COP 1.3, or so.


    I wonder if the Swedes got about the same in their attempt to replicate their own Lugano attempt.

  • LDM,


    Thank you for the work you put into this. Your adjusted Lugano COP puts it in line with what Higgins and MFMP found. Small, but still something. BEC reports about the same COP 1.3, or so.


    I wonder if the Swedes got about the same in their attempt to replicate their own Lugano attempt.


    Thank's


    I used the average of both the values with no bias and high bias to get to about the same values as Thomas Clarke reported.

    However if you are not using the high bias (Which brings the values down), but only the normal bias, meaning the standard emissivity curve used in Lugano, then the COP value increases to 1.3.

    Indeed in line with what Bob Higgins and the MFMP found.

  • The MFMP also found, indirectly, that the unfuelled thermal validation ecat mock-up produced a false COP of about 3.8 if one uses the total emissivity from the alumina plot instead of the integrated in band spectral emissivity of alumina specific to the IR camera.

  • Lugano rods convection heat transfer coefficients


    The convective heat transfer coefficients used in calculating the convective powers for the rods can be calculated.

    We do this by using Newtons law. Newtons law is given by the following formula :


    Q = hA(Ts-Ta)


    Q being the power

    h the convective heat transfer coefficient

    A the surface area

    Ts the surface temperature

    Ta the ambient temperature


    h can then be calculated as


    h = Q/(A(Ts-Ta))


    Since the convective data for the rods in the Lugano report give the values for the power (Q), the value of the area of each section (A) being 4.71E-3 m2, the section temperatures Ts and the ambient temperature (21 degree C), we can for each section calculate the convective heat transfer coefficient used for each section.

    Tthe results of these calculations can be found for both the upper and lower rods in the following tables


    Upper rod h values


    Area----Tu (C)-----Conv (W)------h

    -1-------151.52-------5.84-------9.50

    -2-------125.13-------4.45-------9.07

    -3---------90.85-------2.81-------8.54

    -4---------68.17-------1.72-------7.74

    -5---------58.26-------1.28-------7.29

    -6---------54.12-------1.11-------7.12

    -7---------46.33-------0.80-------6.71

    -8---------40.02-------0.56-------6.25

    -9---------35.34-------0.40-------5.92

    10--------31.82-------0.28-------5.49


    Lower rod h values


    Area----Td (C)-----Conv (W)------h

    -1-------147.98-------5.65-------9.45

    -2-------118.89-------4.13-------8.96

    -3---------87.71-------2.66-------8.47

    -4---------68.15-------1.72-------7.75

    -5---------58.21-------1.28-------7.30

    -6---------52.82-------1.06-------7.07

    -7---------45.06-------0.75-------6.62

    -8---------38.89-------0.52-------6.17

    -9---------34.30-------0.36-------5.75

    10--------31.09-------0.26-------5.47


    Since I wanted to know if I could correctly calculate the convective heat transfer coefficients myself, I did the calulation of the convective heat transfer coefficients of the rods myself.

    The result was that they differed from the values calculated back from the report.

    To understand how I did the calculations we recalculate the convective heat transfer coefficients for area 3 of the lower rods.

    For the calculation we use the data from the following table which gives k (thermal conductivity), alpha (thermal diffusivity) and v (kinematic viscosity) as function of the film temperature.

    (These values are from the same table in the book Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer as the Lugano testers used)


    --film temp-----k--------alpha-------v

    -------------------E-3--------E-6--------E-6


    ------100-------9.34--------2.5--------2.00

    ------150------13.80-------5.8--------4.43

    ------200------18.10------10.3-------7.59

    ------250------22.30------15.9------11.44

    ------300------26.30------22.5------15.89

    ------350------30.00------29.9------20.92

    ------400------33.80------38.3------26.41

    ------450------37.30------47.2------32.39

    ------500------40.70------56.7------38.79


    For a temperature of 300K the tabulated values are in agreement with the values mentioned at the bottom of page 11 of the Lugano report.

    The reported ambient temperature during the dummy run was 21 degree C (284.15K) and the surface temperature of the rod was 87.81 degree C (360.86K)

    Thus the film temperature is (284.15 + 360.86) / 2 = 327.51 K

    The closest tabulated value is 350K and we now take this value, one value lower in the table and one value higher.

    For the thermal conductiveity k this gives :


    --------T----------k

    ------300------26.30

    ------350------30.00

    ------400------33.80


    We now do a 3 point curve fit with the Newton method to solve the k value for the temperature of 327.51.

    This gives a k value of 0.0283. In the same way the values for v ( 1.978E-05 ) and alpha ( 2.645E-05 ) can be obtained.

    Using for the Fluid thermal expansion coefficient B the value of 1/Tfilm as specified in the Lugano report and doing the same calculations with the same formulas as used in the report, we obtain a value of the convective heat transfer coefficient h of 8.12.

    The value we obtained as being used by the test team was 8.47. The difference is -4.1 %.

    The outcome of the calculations for all zones of both the upper and lower rods are presented in the following tables.


    Upper rod differences


    Area-----h---------my h-----Error %

    -1-------9.50-------9.57--------0.7

    -2-------9.07-------9.06--------0.1

    -3-------8.54-------8.21--------3.9

    -4-------7.74-------7.47--------3.5

    -5-------7.29-------7.05--------3.3

    -6-------7.12-------6.85--------3.7

    -7-------6.71-------6.41--------4.4

    -8-------6.25-------5.96--------4.7

    -9-------5.92-------5.56--------6.1

    10------5.49-------5.18--------5.7


    Lower rod differences


    Area------h-------my h-------Error %

    -1-------9.45-------9.51--------0.7

    -2-------8.96-------8.92--------0.4

    -3-------8.47-------8.12--------4.1

    -4-------7.75-------7.47--------3.6

    -5-------7.30-------7.05--------3.5

    -6-------7.07-------6.78--------4.1

    -7-------6.62-------6.32--------4.5

    -8-------6.17-------5.87--------4.9

    -9-------5.75-------5.46--------5.0

    10------5.47-------5.09--------7.0


    As can be seen especially for the lower temperatures the differences become quite large.

    A possible explenation might be that the Lugano testers in the report used in the calculation of the convective heat transfer most of the values in two digit accuracy while i used three digits.

    With two digits accuracy the error margin become then quite large and can then possibly add up to the errors in the ranges calculated above.

    Suggestions for other reasons why the values differ are welcome.

  • Might be that Newtons law of cooling is too over-simplified to give an accurate result, especially over a wide variation in temperatures. It assumes that each unit area transfers the same amount of heat (And also that h isn't affected by T).

    Instead of using h = Q/(A(Ts-Ta)), a more accurate method is to calculate an average h (taking the shape of the object into account) - done by first working out the Prandtl, Raleigh & Nusselt numbers for the system.


    Can't paste the formulae for those easily, but this should give you what's needed:


    https://www.engineersedge.com/…ural_convection_13970.htm

  • LDM ,

    Although the error % seems large for the coolest end of the rods, the final W difference, in terms of the total power budget, should still be rather minor. I believe that I had a similar result when I did it, and it did seem to be rounding that made the difference.


    The calculations for working out the Rod segment temperatures and Rod temperature gradient, and therefore power, during the active period is much more complex. There're is very little in the report to go on, since just the final total power is reported for each run.


    You should be close enough, however, with your model that it should be possible to test if the 2/3 factor was in fact applied, or not, to the active period Rod power in the report, since a total 33% overestimate error should be obvious. (It is my opinion that the 2/3 adjustment was not made to the active period Rod power in the report, and therefore the Rod power reported is too high for all active runs. (Easily fixed, since they lump those results into two periods anyways, an indication of how concerned the Professors were about the Rods contribution)).


    Don't forget the minor Joule heating in the rods added in the report from the cables, and consider carefully the contribution of the heater coil extensions entering the Rods for 4 to 5 cm, which affect calculations for both the temperature of the initial Rod segments (Cap end) and the power budget of the Main Tube since these wire extensions, six in all, reduce the amount of input Joule heat available to the Main Tube and Caps, possibly explaining a portion of the previously calculated excess (COP 1.2 or similar).


    Once, here in the Forum, I calculated exactly the parameters of the twisted 15 ga Kanthal resistance wire for the three parallel coils, from which the 6 X 4 cm (estimated) could be subtracted so that the end lead power % of the entire heater windings could be correctly attributed. Off the top of my head, each of the 3 coils have about 1.5 m of wire, which is twisted to make a pre-coiled length of slightly less than half of that. Probably better for me to look it up again. I believe that the Caps and wire extensions combined contain about 30% of the total calibrated resistance heater wire, and therefore the wire extensions could net about 15% of the Total input power.

  • Shane D. ,

    The dummy is messed up in Lugano too. Once that gets squared away, there is no basis, within uncertainties and real errors, to claim any COP other than what Nature normally provides.


    Consider this little crumb: the camera (spectral in band) emissivity is being argued about endlessly, and yet who has tackled the question of the real Total emissivity from which the output power is finally calculated? No one. Why? Because even if we had perfect thermocouple corroborated IR camera temperatures, no one has any real basis to say what the Total emissivity of the device with ribs, uncertain coatings, uncertain roughness, etc., really is. Oh, sure we can grab a textbook value for that. That should be real close to an object we have ourselves only seen in a few photos (one of which could be the one that broke, not the actual working one.)


    How much off does the Total emissivity have to be to eat up the 'excess' 7 to 20% ? Not much.

    Higgins' report, as good as it is, has an error which moves his estimate closer to TC's when corrected.

    The MFMP version does not deal with the thermal distribution very well, and crashes like a Jato-powered sedan into a cliff wall when dealing with the Dummy.

    And TC's version can have that 0.07 (?) excess wiped out with the most minor adjustment to the total emissivity.

    LDM's version is more complex, but still has ad-hoc parts put in, like total emissiviy, as is necessary, because acurate information simply does not exist.


    All of these agree that COP 2+ did not likely happen. (Let alone COP > 1.3 even). The little bit that that might look like excess can be wiped away in a moment in the noise of the uncertainties. More certainty is not going to be forthcoming. Unless maybe IH leaks out their report on tests with the last Reactor.