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

  • To pretend that the emissivity problem did not happen is opening a rabbit hole where all sorts of arbitrary fixes that can be imagined can be applied to make the results as fantastic as desired.

    It is not facing reality.

  • Alan Smith

    Quote

    That's what you get for not using proper controls.

    Indeed! Do you think that the reason that Rossi never ever used correct controls was accident or ignorance? When he was told over and over why controls were necessary and how to perform them, starting in 2011? And it was highly qualified people friendly to LENR who told him.


    Rossi's classic response (paraphrase) from 2012 or so: "Why should I do a dummy run (blank/control)? I already know what it will show. " And he added insult to injury by calling those advocating blanks and calibrations "stupid!"

  • Without Rossi? Is that from the legal case depositions? I didn't know IH even had a lab and could manufacture things.

    Dameron, who’s name appears in the patent application that describes the Lugano device construction (as well as other types) that Rossi had a fit over, helped design the Lugano device, which was built in Raleigh. At least three Lugano type devices were made just before the Lugano demonstration. The first IH “lab” location looked a bit rough (recall Dewey having a fit over photos of the Blue Plant sitting in the driveway I posted a long time ago).

  • LDM ,

    Am I mistaking your meaning when you say the core temperature is lower than the outside temperature in your simulations?


    The inner temperature is indeed lower.

    But I explained already that this was because I was reporting average temperatures.

    And since the reactor core is longer then the ribbed area, the average of the reactor core includes much lower temperatures under the end cap, which brings the average temperure down.

    But for positions under the ribs the core temperature is higher then the temperature of the ribs as it should be

  • Quote

    I was talking about IH.

    OK, right. I still don't understand why they gave Rossi so much money up front based on the flimsiest and completely insufficient tests done by Rossi and his close associates. They could have asked any major testing lab to check the ecats under NDA or if they wanted to avoid the mainstream, they could have gone with Earthtech. Either way, they would have known up front that Rossi was most likely FOS.


    Almost everything about IH's investment in Rossi did not make sense and obviously not.


    A one year test of a large machine made up of subunits never made sense when a test of smaller devices taken one at a time for short periods had never been performed by appropriate scientists. That could have been done in house before giving all that cash to Rossi. I have often heard how security issues cause such mistakes. That is ridiculous. Any device claimed to produce energy on a large scale can easily be tested as a black box, something else which was reiterated many times to Rossi and the public early on in the fiasco. And in any case, secrecy can't protect you once you start to sell the thing. Rossi always said that being first would protect him. Absurd again. A puny outfit like Rossi and his rag tag band with their fictitious robotic factories are going to protect themselves against the large companies of this world? Against unscrupulous governments like the Chinese? All without proper patents? ROTFWL.

  • "wrong emissivity methods" accurately explains claimed Lugano COP and mysterious acceleration in COP noted by experimenters and used by them as confirmation of an exothermic reaction.


    You always ask for a peer review: Why do you not handover your paper to a significant journal??


    Of course I do agree that they used the wrong emissivity factors but I do not agree with all the conclusions you made. I think it would be the best if you join your calculation with LDM's simulation and adjust your assumption to the reality of the Optris the profs used. And don't forget that we have no probe of the Alumina they used. Further it is obvious that the emissivity is < 0.95 for various reasons one being the hot fuel that only occupies a small portion of the E-cat. The prof's missed to measure the T-difference from side/top/bottom where we expect the bottom to be the hottest place.


    And last: Do not forget that a large portion of the radiation is going to the side (fins!), what heavily compensates some mistakes...

  • You always ask for a peer review: Why do you not handover your paper to a significant journal??


    Of course I do agree that they used the wrong emissivity factors but I do not agree with all the conclusions you made. I think it would be the best if you join your calculation with LDM's simulation and adjust your assumption to the reality of the Optris the profs used. And don't forget that we have no probe of the Alumina they used. Further it is obvious that the emissivity is < 0.95 for various reasons one being the hot fuel that only occupies a small portion of the E-cat. The prof's missed to measure the T-difference from side/top/bottom where we expect the bottom to be the hottest place.


    And last: Do not forget that a large portion of the radiation is going to the side (fins!), what heavily compensates some mistakes...


    Yes; I always ask for a peer review. More than one. Of course.


    A significant journal is the easiest way to get this, but not the only such. However, it has to be an objective peer review, not a cherry-selected set of people who happen to like the idea.

  • LDM ,


    Perhaps the apparent low power, after reducing the T from near 1400 C to near 800 C, is due to not correcting the emissivity for the ribs in the output power calculation?


    IE: the already-high in-band emissivity of the alumina (~ 0.95) gets a small bump to near 0.97 , since there is not so much improvement to be made in the emissivity in that band by self-reflection/absorption (the rib valleys are a weak cavity). In the Optris IR spectral sensitively range, the reactor is almost a black body already. However, the total emissivity used for radiant power calculations could have greater overall improvement to the emissivity made by the ribs, so that maybe a total hemispheric emissivity of 0.65 (for a flat surface) could become 0.75 when ribbed, boosting the output power at the lower re-calculated temperatures.

  • Paradigmnoia


    Perhaps the apparent low power, after reducing the T from near 1400 C to near 800 C, is due to not correcting the emissivity for the ribs in the output power calculation?


    It is not clear for me what you are meaning by the above text.

    The 800 degree C is the real temperature if we assume that incorrect emissivities are used.

    The power for my simulation was derived from that the total coil wire power was 906.31 - 41.25 = 865.06 Watt,

    But using your proposed wire configuration of 4 cm in the rods, 4 cm under each end cap and under the ribs 10 windings, then the total power under the end caps and under the rips (the power of the ECAT) becomes 735 Watt.

    With that power assigned to the FEM model i get a surface temperature of just over 600 degree C in the simulation

    So the power of 735 Watt is not from a simulation, but based on the applied power and taking into account the distribution of that power.


    If this does not answer your question maybe you can explain your reasoning/question a little bit more ?


    IE: the already-high in-band emissivity of the alumina (~ 0.95) gets a small bump to near 0.97 , since there is not so much improvement to be made in the emissivity in that band by self-reflection/absorption (the rib valleys are a weak cavity).


    Correct


    In the Optris IR spectral sensitively range, the reactor is almost a black body already. However, the total emissivity used for radiant power calculations could have greater overall improvement to the emissivity made by the ribs, so that maybe a total hemispheric emissivity of 0.65 (for a flat surface) could become 0.75 when ribbed, boosting the output power at the lower re-calculated temperatures.


    The boost of the emissivity is defined by the view factor, which is fixed for the ECAT and the emissivity, which is variable and dependent on the temperature.

    The new emissivity is e /(1- Fv*(1-e)) with Fv = .42812

    With the formula applied the emssivity of .650 becomes 0.765

    However with only heater power applied, the increased emissivity must be compensated by a lower surface temperature in order to keep the total power the same.

  • But using your proposed wire configuration of 4 cm in the rods, 4 cm under each end cap and under the ribs 10 windings, then the total power under the end caps and under the rips (the power of the ECAT) becomes 735 Watt.

    With that power assigned to the FEM model i get a surface temperature of just over 600 degree C in the simulation

    So the power of 735 Watt is not from a simulation, but based on the applied power and taking into account the distribution of that power.


    OK. I am just mentally going over possibilities that balance all of the 'known' characteristics to help the model along if possible. I was unsure of the treatment of the ribs for radiant output, since the alumina total emissivity (Lugano report Plot 1) is almost certainly unsuitable for the ribbed area, which has the cavity effect of the ribs to consider, increasing emissivity compared to a flat surface of the same material.

    The Caps' total emissivity is probably pretty close to that shown in Plot 1, while the Rods seem to be slightly reflective due to the very smooth industrial-made surface, and the emissivity may need to be reduced somewhat both for the Optris Measurement Area emissivity setting and the total emissivity.

  • Actually, does the View Factor adjustment take into account the normal-viewed area of the tips of the ribs versus the V-cavity area?

    The V-grooves/Ribs are not ideal triangles with tips vanishing to zero on the outer surface.

    The normal-viewed area is more like a series of rectangles for the valleys, separated by thin rectangles which are the rib tips. So the valleys are perhaps only 90% of the normal view area, while cooler tips are perhaps the remaining 10% (for example).

  • Paradigmnoia  


    Actually, does the View Factor adjustment take into account the normal-viewed area of the tips of the ribs versus the V-cavity area?


    The view factor is the value which indeed takes into acount the change in view from the valey to the top.


    The V-grooves/Ribs are not ideal triangles with tips vanishing to zero on the outer surface.


    The view factor given is for ideal triangle shaped fins


    The normal-viewed area is more like a series of rectangles for the valleys, separated by thin rectangles which are the rib tips. So the valleys are perhaps only 90% of the normal view area, while cooler tips are perhaps the remaining 10% (for example).


    As stated, the view factor was based on triangle shaped fins.

    If the shape differs somewhat from an ideal triangle, i think that on the average the value will still be about the same. For example if at the bottem the shape is more rectangular it will cause the view factor between the fins increase in the valey, but then the shape at the top must bend more inwards, decrasing the view between the fins there. So this wll somewhat average out.

  • LDM ,


    Your modified e in your Dummy spreadsheet due to IRM and View Factor seems OK to me in general.

    When viewing the output power distribution Rods%/Caps%/Ribs% the Rods seem (to me) to have a larger than expected proportion of the output for the Dummy cases, both yours and Lugano, relative to the electrical input for the respective segment. (I’ll post a little summary below in a moment)


    What range of W/mK are you using for the Rods and Caps?


    Please could you make two more spreadsheets in the same form factor as the Dummy one, (I realize that this quite onerous), for both the recalculated lower temperature Run 16 and your COP 5 version of Run 16 ? Then it will easier to see what the simulation is doing. The Ribs can be treated as a single section for now. I am more interested in chasing why ~ 24% of the electrical input goes into the Rods and Caps, but ~ 50% goes out, when ~76 % of the input power goes into the thin Ribs section in the Dummy cases.

  • From an engineering point of view, working in a frangible ceramic material it makes more sense to follow Paradigmnoia 's suggestion of 'square cut' grooves and flat-topped ridges, I think taking the fins to a point would cause quite a bot of 'crumbly' trouble.


    Alan Smith ,

    Mostly I was thinking that the ridges, although essentially triangular in profile, do not extinguish to a perfect point, but in fact have a sensible width at the tip. This in turn means that the normal view of the ridged surface will include rib tips with a non-enhanced emissivity combined with the valleys with enhanced emissivity. The resulting pattern, viewed normally from a distance, is a series of higher emissivity areas separated by thin lower emissivity areas. Perhaps it might reduce the overall Measurement Area view factor emissivity correction factor by 5 to 10 %.

    The effect is probably minimal anyway, but could be more important as the rib area becomes hotter.


    There are more important considerations than getting picky about this idea just yet...


    Like how heat conducts from the hot end to the cool end of each Rod. Quick calculations I did seem to show that the alumina can't conduct enough heat to the other end of the Rod to raise it's temperature enough to emit the even 1/2 W at the outer end segment. It seems like a copper pipe 3 cm in diameter and 1 mm thick was required, rather than an alumina one. However, the rather large copper cable inside each Rod does seem to be able to conduct the heat down there. But then it needs to get the heat out of the cable and into the Rod material...

  • So, how do you persuade a group of people who don't like the idea to review your work objectively?


    Scientists can (and must when reviewing) deal with process and factual matters, rather than beauty context or personal feelings. There is always some room for interpretation, some aspect of personal feelings. But, if this is science, rather than Eng Lit, positive or negative comments can be justified and that justification critiqued by third parties. Also, contrary to what seems to be a prevailing opinion in many places, most scientists are genuinely interested in the truth, and when given papers to review try to do so objectively: easier for them to do that than for somone whose life work is validated by a positive experiment and unrealised by a negative one.

  • Also, contrary to what seems to be a prevailing opinion in many places, most scientists are genuinely interested in the truth, and when given papers to review try to do so objectively


    That's as maybe. Probably true. But since we are not playing the 'peer-reviewed paper' game which I told you we would not, I was talking about experimental replication in an 'away' lab. For that to happen, as you might imagine, the away team usually needs a more than ordinary degree of interest in the first place, and to have seen things when playing at the home lab that intrigue them.

  • Paradigmnoia


    Your modified e in your Dummy spreadsheet due to IRM and View Factor seems OK to me in general.


    When viewing the output power distribution Rods%/Caps%/Ribs% the Rods seem (to me) to have a larger than expected proportion of the output for the Dummy cases, both yours and Lugano, relative to the electrical input for the respective segment. (I’ll post a little summary below in a moment)


    I already was wondering about that too and think that the length of the heater coil wire inside the rods could have been more then the 4 cm you suggested.

    For the dummy run simulation it would bring the temperatures of the ribbed area possibly a little bit down and maybe even more in agreement with the reported data but would boost significantly the power in the rods.

    A possible arangement would be a coil of 9 windings (same number of turns as shown in the IH patent application drawing) with 24 cm length (so somewhat extending under the end caps), 2 cm wire in the end caps and then 6 cm in the rods.


    As far as the output power distribution is concerned : For the two sets of rods, based on the data in the Lugano report I calculated about 118 watt while the Lugano report calculated about 130 watts.

    The dummy run recalc gave (see page 1 of the spreadsheet)


    Rods 118.38 Watt

    Caps --87.33 Watt

    Ribs --281.77 Watt


    The total power is then calculated as 487.48 Watt and the distribution becomes 24.3/17.9/57.8

    That is different from the 28.89/21.05/50.06 you are giving.


    EDIT : I now see that you compare the inflated case.

    Maybe you should add that to the text so that it is clear what data you are presenting


    What range of W/mK are you using for the Rods and Caps?

    I am assigning the powers to the heater sections in the model as per your suggestion for the power division.

    A section power is then evenly distributed over the length of the heater wire in the section.

    So I am not using W/mk values.


    Please could you make two more spreadsheets in the same form factor as the Dummy one, (I realize that this quite onerous), for both the recalculated lower temperature Run 16 and your COP 5 version of Run 16 ?


    I could do that, but you can see that the time between posting calculations is often 2 or more weeks due to the time I have available.

    So yes, I can do it and am prepared to do it , but don't expect a quick response. (Also the comming two days and the weekend I am not able to spend time on it)

    If you want to continue faster you could take for example the dummy run spread sheet and modify it yourself. (they are not protected and you are in my opinion capable enough to do it)

    Let me know what you prefer.


    Then it will easier to see what the simulation is doing. The Ribs can be treated as a single section for now.


    They must be treated as a single section since the Lugano report gives only accumulated data for the active runs, not the detailed data per section.

    And for the rods no average temperatures are given.

    So we have to find a solution for that if we want to include the rods in the calculations


    I am more interested in chasing why ~ 24% of the electrical input goes into the Rods and Caps, but ~ 50% goes out, when ~76 % of the input power goes into the thin Ribs section in the Dummy cases.


    See the comment above about the wire distribution.

  • Ignoring the cables (probably a big part of the problem) I get something like this for the Rods (Cap at the far left)...

    Assumes a constant 200 C for the far left Rod 5 cm segment, conduction from that point on to towards the RH side.

    Alumina with 36 W/mK used.

    Still fiddling with it a fair bit, though.


    EDIT: Image V2 looks better. Added the cables.

  • Started over and made this.

    451 C main tube (ribs area, but no ribs yet) constant T (input), Caps started at 325 C and left to run wherever they want after the start, and Rods not quite touching the Caps. The Caps continue heating for several hours, eventually getting not too much cooler than the Ribs area.

    (The simulation hot air movement effect is cool.)

    The second one is dialing the Ribs up to 1410 C, start Caps at 325 C, and see what happens.

    For both runs, the sole input is a constant Rib area temperature. The caps and Rods have extra heat from the wires in their respective areas not yet accounted for.

    Too bad the materials library link seems to be broken on the simulator.

  • Suggestion for the rods:


    Take a 3 cm diameter, 50 cm long ceramic pipe (or from another material which can stand the temperature).

    Stick the halve of a heating element (coil, power resister) in at one side.

    The part sticking out simulating the heated environment of the end cap.

    Put the power on.

    I think that after a short time it will be acting like a horizental flue pipe in that there will be hot air current flowing in the rod from the hot heater side to the other end which is cold.

    It would possibly explain why the rods are hotter near the cold side then would be expected from conduction only.

  • LDM ,

    This test you suggest is worthwhile.

    However, I suspect that cold air will flow into the unheated end and exit at the hot end as the air is subsequently heated and the resultant buoyancy lifts it away. (If the tube is horizontal).


    I have a large thermocouple protection tube that I can cut the closed end from to try out. Only 30 cm long, much thicker, and with a much smaller ID than the Lugano Rods, though.

  • Alan Smith wrote:

    Quote

    For that to happen, as you might imagine, the away team usually needs a more than ordinary degree of interest in the first place, and to have seen things when playing at the home lab that intrigue them.

    I don't know if they are still in active business but if so, Earthtech (Scott and Marissa Little and company) could do an objective job and I suspect, given strong evidence of positive results (Eout>Ein) they would be very interested.

    http://earthtech.org/maverickinventor/

  • Where my very basic modeling seems to have trouble is with just the hot end segments of the Rods set to the ‘right’ temperature, the far ends don’t get hot enough (stay at ambient), but when the Rods start at 21 C and the Caps are set to the ‘right’ temperature, the hot Rod end gets ‘too hot’ (compared to what it ‘should’ be), and there is then enough conduction to heat the cool ends above ambient.


    Furthermore, heating only just the Rib area to a ‘correct’ temperature, the Caps get hotter than they ‘should’ be, especially at higher temperatures, which then cascades to the Rods, making them ‘too hot’. Note the Caps climbing over 1000 C when the Rib area is set to 1410 C, with no additional input heat added to the Caps or Rods besides the heated Rib area only. (Second image above).


    There are probably a dozen ways the simulator set-up I used could be flawed, besides that it is a 2D simplification, but I think the general ideas it expresses are analogous to what actually should happen. I need to spend some more time on that, but practical experiments are probably a better guide to reality and may guide the simulation adjustments closer to the real thing.