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

  • I was following the Rossi story and all the discusions on possible errrors made by the Lugano testers.

    Then i retired and found that trying to further investigate the Lugano report on it's technical merits would be a nice hobby, also learning new things such as heat tranfer, flow analysis etc.

    So I was not starting this as a project to prove Rossi right or wrong but out of interest in technology.

    And I still find that there are things to be researched with respect to the report and are still learning new things.


    Thanks for asking


    LDM



  • LDM ,

    Have you tried the emissivity of zirconia with your FEM simulation, instead of Durapot or alumina?


    If you mean simulating the Lugano ECAT with the emissivities of zirconia instead of alumina then the answer is no.

    Those simulations are taking a lot of time since I have to do several iterations and have to prepare for each iteration

    But if you have strong arguments for doing such a simulation then I am prepared to do it.

    But don't expect a result soon


    Let me know

  • Well understood LDM , thanks for reply, now,

    after all the time you spent both energy spent, what would be the trend compared to datas shared by "dottore"AR ?



  • Clearance Items


    Para - Was able to dig out some additional information for you. Per Fulvio at the time, the reactor was painted with Alumina and the provided details are:

    The paint is from Aremco Products, Inc in Valley Cottage, NY (tel: 845-268-0039); specs: 'Pyro Paint 634-ZO', Lot no.: 634-ZO-1153.


    That's all we're going to be able to get on that subject. Fulvio said Alumina, the product number says Zr. The surface analysis said 99.99% pure alumina.

    Oh well.

  • According to your work, your calculations, do you think that COP, XH extent that Rossi claims about Lugano's results , are true ?

    I normally am not looking at what Rossi is claiming and realy don't know what he is claiming about the Lugano results.

    (But it would be interesting to know).


    The only thing I can conclude from my calculations and simulations is that there was XH.

    Even if in the calculations I assume inflated temperatures then there is still XH to report.

    Also the calculations from Thomas Clarkes corrected report based on inflated temperatures showed excess heat.

    If I don't assume inflated temperatures then I arrive at even higher COP's then in the Lugano report.

    But if you have followed this forum thread, then you should know all this already.


    The problem however is that some conclusions I made, based on the calculations and simulations are in disagreement with some parts of the text of the Lugano report.

    Which makes me wonder if the write up was wrong or inconsistent or that there are other underlying issues which we all did not yet discover.


    The people knowing the answers are not (yet) going to respond.



  • LDM Thanks for you kind reply,


    you said:

    But if you have followed this forum thread, then you should know all this already.

    You well know that nobody can read everything here because first you have to select only few interesting things from others...


    However what you said is interesting because i appreciate both @Paradigmnoia skills/work who have an exact opposition to lugano's results vs yours ?



  • you said:


    But if you have followed this forum thread, then you should know all this already.


    You well know that nobody can read everything here because first you have to select only few interesting things from others...


    I know, that's why I inserted "IF" in the text

    A pitty that you missed so much fun over here :)


    However what you said is interesting because i appreciate both Paradigmnoia skills/work who have an exact opposition to lugano's results vs yours ?

    Para has indeed an opposite view.

    I am not going to comment in this post on his view to you, that's up to himself.

    But I believe that our opposite views make the discussions on this thread interesting and I appreciate his technical comments.


  • LDM you said:

    A pitty that you missed so much fun over here.


    it made me laugh too much :), because that notion of pleasure remains in fact, very personal, to each its ingredients.

    To me high technical comments from Paradigmnoia for example therefore i don't share conclusions remains however a pleasure instead :)


  • Basically some people believe that the Lugano device has a positive COP, but low, as much to salvage their beliefs as to keep hope alive for an obtainable LENR world I suppose... in response to the nearly unassailable evidence collected post-Lugano (MFMP, Higgins, LDM, Clarke, me, the Professors, Bert Abbing, Randombit and many more unsung heroes digging for truth), on IR measurements that demonstrate the overstated power production measurement reported in 2014.


    However, when the mathematical correction is made to undo the bad temperature measurement technique, the dependent power calculations should result in COP 1 (a little less, really), not COP 1.3 if there were no LENR. Or is there a parameter or two not quite right? Simulation and physical tests ensued and were refined. The emissivity for example can be fine tuned to produce desired results one way or the other, with good reasons mostly for doing so. As we refine our models we may actually come to agree one day exactly what really happened.


    Unless by some miracle the Lugano Optris files became available to examine. 10 minutes each of representative Dummy, Active part 1 and Active part 2 periods would answer a lot of questions.

  • Another Lugano dummy run temperature check.


    For an internally heated tube/rod type shape there is for a section in the middle limited lateral heat conduction since the temperatures on both sides of the section have temperatures close to the temperature of the section itself.

    This means that most heat in such a section must be radially dissipated by convection and radiation.


    Using the measurement information provided by Para for his rod in an attachment to his post #634, we can use his data for a section temperature verification of the Lugano dummy run.


    For this analysis we use Para's first measurement at time 20.59 for section 3 (near the middle).

    We have the following data :


    Total heater power-----------------85.41 Watt

    Heater coil length---------------------6.1 cm

    Section length (section 3)---------- 2.5 cm


    This means that (2.5/6.1) x 85.41 = 35.0 Watt is dissipated by the heater in section 3

    From this power we subtract the convective power.

    For calculating the convective power we use the method as shown in the Lugano report since that the method was found to be in close agreement with CFD simulations.

    (see post #382)

    The calculated convective power then becomes 10.87 watt


    Thus 35.00 - 10.87 = 24.13 Watt needs to be get rid off by radiation and some (limited) lateral conduction.


    The dimensions of Para's rod section 3 are


    Diameter------------0.025 Meter

    Length----------------0.025 Meter


    Thus the area is Pi x .025 x .025 = 0.001963 square meter


    The dissipated (mostly) radiated heat per area for section 3 is then 24.13/0.001963 =

    12292 Watt/square meter


    We are now comparing this to the disspated heat per area of area 5 of the Lugano ECAT during the dummy run.

    Following the drawing in the patent the heater winding under the ribs is 8 windings with a diameter of about 1 cm. (length under the ribs is 20 cm)

    If we calculate this through for the dummy run then the dissipated power under the ribs becomes 290 Watt

    Power per section of 2 cm then becomes (2/20) x 290 = 29 Watt

    Convection is the calculated 14.96 watt (see post #393) but must be multiplied by the convective correction factor for the ribs.

    This correction value was found to be 0.752 and is due to the less efficient convection which is caused by the ribs being close to each other.

    The convected power of section 5 is then 14.96 x 0.752 = 11.25 Watt

    Thus the dissipated radiated (and some lateral) heat of section 5 becomes 29.00 - 11.25 = 17.75 Watt.

    The effective radiative area of section 5, rib area and view factor applied, is 0.001504 square meter.

    (For an explanation of effective area see post #20)


    Thus the dissipated radiated and minor lateral heat for section 5 during the Lugano dummy run becomes 17.75/0.001504 = 11801 Watt/square meter


    The difference between both the 12292 Watt/square meter from Para's rod and the 11801 Watt/square meter for section 5 of the Lugano dummy run is only 4.2%.


    This means that the surface temperature of section 5 of the Lugano dummy run must be close to the value wich Para measured for section 3 of his rod, the value being 451.3 degree C.


    The reported value in the Lugano report for section 5 during the dummy run was 454.0 degree C, indeed close to the value of 451.3 degree which Para measured.

    Thus the in the Lugano report reported value of 454 degree C for section 5 of the dummy run must be (close to) correct.

  • Worth remembering the quite well hidden sentence in the report that states the dummy run temperatures were measured by TC and the book emissivities adjusted as needed to make the IR measurements fit the actual temperature!


    However, it is good that the calculated and actual temperatures here match well


    The problem with that experiment is that, in so many ways, the active test conditions were very different from the dummy test conditions.

  • Worth remembering the quite well hidden sentence in the report that states the dummy run temperatures were measured by TC and the book emissivities adjusted as needed to make the IR measurements fit the actual temperature!


    However, it is good that the calculated and actual temperatures here match well


    The problem with that experiment is that, in so many ways, the active test conditions were very different from the dummy test conditions.


    What really MUST be remembered (or even be made aware of) by those Rossi supporters who still think the Lugano test showed a positive COP, was that :


    1) Rossi on JONP stated several times that the Lugano test was ran completely independent of him.


    2) It came out and was verified that this claim (like most of Rossi's claims) was a pure lie. The Lugano profs did not run the active Lugano test.

    Rossi and Fabioini (sp) ran the test in it's entirety and the profs supposedly "dropped by" some unknown number of times.

    We do not know how often or when. It could have been as little as one time! It could have been more often, but it is now known they did not run the test.

    Again, a proven and major lie by Rossi. Rossi recorded and provided the test data and It would be foolish to trust any data that Rossi provided.


    3) The dummy calibration was not run to the high temperature of the fueled reactor. The fact that Rossi specifically would not allow the dummy run to be heated to the working temperature for calibration tells a lot about the story!


    For some reason, believers want to skip over the mountains of hard, known "negative" evidence but cling to "perhaps this" or "possible that" scenarios to keep hope alive. When comparing Rossi's years long history of deceit and continued lies, one needs to understand that is what he does..... continuously!


    Also, the excuse that Rossi is "improving his design" for his continual actions of dropping "working reactors" with high COP, "Sigma 5" reliability and "satisfied customers" is also clearly apparent. Why cannot some people see this?


    The facts and repetitive history are there! How can you ignore this?

  • I don’t follow where 8 windings under the Ribs comes from. There should be 3 x 9.5 wraps under the ribs, based on the original patent application drawing.

    .

    ?thumbnail=1

    .

    727-lugano-device-lead-wires-jpg

  • I don’t follow where 8 windings under the Ribs comes from. There should be 3 x 9.5 wraps under the ribs, based on the original patent application drawing



    Taking the drawing I count 9 windings per phase

    See your update drawing below



    The difference is because in my first count I determined the number of windings by counting the full tops and then subtracted 1, which gives 9 -1 = 8 complete windings.

    The drawing indeed shows some not complete windings at both ends, but I assumed that those would be outside the rib area.

    If we take also into account the not complete windings at the ends, then I get 9 windings total.


    When evaluating all the power distributions for the different coil options I found that 3 x 8 windings under the ribs gives the best temperature profile match with the Lugano dummy run when doing a FEM simulation.

    (Did not test with halve windings, but believe that 3 x 8.5 might even be better)


    For 8.5 windings the power under the ribs will be about 300 watt

    Per section 30 Watt

    The power density will then be (30 - 11.25 )/0.001504 = 12467 Watt/square meter

    The difference is then about 1 %.


    For 9 windings the power under the ribs will be about 313 watt which gives

    (31.3 - 11.25 )/0.001504 = 13307 Watt/square meter

    The difference is then about 8.3 %.


    However for 9 and more windings in order to get a power distribution in line with Lugano, meaning that also enough power goes into the caps and the rods, the windings in those cases need to continue for a small distance in the caps.

    This lowers the power under the ribs close to the 290 Watts again (a few Watts more)

    But that the windings extend somewhat into the caps is not shown in the drawing.


    Nevertheless, even if a coil of 9 windings is fully under the ribs, then since temperature is proportional to the power density raised to the power 1/4, the temperature deviation is 2% (Kelvin value)

    For the about 730 degree K, this means a temperature difference of + 14.6 degree C, even higher then the 454 degree and not close to the about 380 degree C which we would expect if we recalculate the temperature of 454 degree C if that temperature was inflated.


    But as always, the calculations are approximations and thus need to be considered indicative.

    However since the expected temperatures are far from corrected inflated temperatures I expect the reported dummy run temperatures to be correct.









  • LDM ,

    I suggest asking the Professors how the Dummy was tested with IR, thermocouples and E Dots.

    Experience suggests that questions that are not asking for an opinion on the device or Rossi, or using blaming language, sometimes get answered. The trick is to ask a question that is strictly a mechanical or scientific question.


    (Note that the Kapton-TiO2 calibrated 0.95 emissivity stickers are only good to about 380 C, whereupon the glue fails.)

  • LDM ,

    I suggest asking the Professors how the Dummy was tested with IR, thermocouples and E Dots.

    Experience suggests that questions that are not asking for an opinion on the device or Rossi, or using blaming language, sometimes get answered. The trick is to ask a question that is strictly a mechanical or scientific question.


    (Note that the Kapton-TiO2 calibrated 0.95 emissivity stickers are only good to about 380 C, whereupon the glue fails.)


    Don't forget, as the Lugano paper stated, that the values of emissivity used for alumina in the iterative calculation were adjusted to make the results of that match the TC measurement. Since those values were not used anywhere else (the active test is at much higher temperatures) the IR tests during the dummy measurements are essentially irrelevant, giving no extra information. I guess you could work back from their incorrect method to the actual band emissivity of the alumina at those lower temperatures?

  • Don't forget, as the Lugano paper stated, that the values of emissivity used for alumina in the iterative calculation were adjusted to make the results of that match the TC measurement. Since those values were not used anywhere else (the active test is at much higher temperatures) the IR tests during the dummy measurements are essentially irrelevant, giving no extra information. I guess you could work back from their incorrect method to the actual band emissivity of the alumina at those lower temperatures?

    .

    Or zirconia emissivity due to the Pyro Paint 634-ZO?