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

  • LDM

    Thank you for this whiff of morning freshness :)

    I admit that I am not yet well aware concerning all of things in relation with plasmas, however, in cold plasmas, indeed, this is especially electrons which move due to their relative lightness.

    This is even more true if they are subjected to a magnetic field.

    I even learned about ultra cold plasmas existence to kill viruses and bacteria (fashion topic).

    It's also important to understand that in a cold plasma less than 1% of atoms are ionized, the rest being neutral.

    The essential question would be:

    how could we make 2 atoms meet at same place in this plasma so that they "Lenr" react ?

    As i explained in my paper we need to do radical H monoatomic.

    Rossi's used different ways to do that in the past as i explained earlier.

    Here i expect he uses simply high temperature because above 2500° , H mono can stay at monoatomic stage.

    This is why for example space shuttle rocket engines avoided going beyond this temperature because make H dissociated is endothermic so rocket engines is losing thrust above this.

    Now, my main question should be how reach this nuclei level of temperature for a cold plasma ?

    Again, if ionization helps to break molecule, however never you will find both H monoatomic species if Lenr needs this ?

    That would be the trick Rossi found about his QX, i expect..

  • Thanks. I see that the diagrams are from

    It should be noted that this has to do with radiation from electrons as they are decelerated by collision or near collision with positive ions.

    What I don't know is how strong this effect is compared with the normal discrete Rydberg type of radiation as electrons move to different atomic orbitals.

    Anyway, you mentioning that a thick plasma does not a black body make, reminds me of Dr. Pierre Robitaille's theory that the sun emits as a blackbody because it emits, not as a dense plasma, but as a condensed (iirc) hexagonal hydrogen layer at the surface. (!)

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • In earlier posts I have come to the conclusion that the MFMP Lugano thermal simulation must have been wrong and that this was possibly due to the cast being a not pure (composite) Alumina or being casted of another ceramic type.

    In my last post on this subject ( post #736 ) it was again shown that the total emissivity of the MFMP cast must have been substantially lower then that of standard Alumina

    Looking at the published type of cast published by the MFMP ( Cotronics RTC-60 ) and the picture Para showed in one of his posts (RTC-70) I tried to imagine which characteristic of the cast material could have been of influence on the total emissivity if their dogbone had indeed being made by one of these casting materials.

    One of the possible characteristics of these casts is their very small grain size which is especially true for RTC-70 which is designated as ultra-fine.

    I seem to remember, but can currently not find that information, that the grain size of the Cotronics RTC-70 castable was 2 um. That is a very small grain size for a castable, so I wondered what the influence of the grain size would have been on the total emissivity.

    The only information I found was the following table which gives some indication of the influence of grain size on total emissivity of Alumina at a temperature of 1200 C

    As can be seen a small grain size lowers the total emissivity quite a bit.

    I don't know if it also lowers the Optris in-band emissivity, but if so it is another possible explanation for the higher temperatures measured by the MFMP.

  • For total emissivity, at high temperature (certainly by >1000 C), about 0.4 is pretty much uncontested, for Lugano and similar experiments. It is almost never actually tested (except by COE).

    1000W, 0.3 Emissivity ,T1 = 1000W, 0.9 Emissivity, T2.....(T = Temperature)

    The high emissivity of ceramics in general, in the LW IR, is confirmed by numerous experiments. (And the IR lamp and heater industry). Even me356 had an IR pyrometer for temperature measurement. These IR of course are calibrated to the object emissivity or the thermocouples would not agree close enough.

    Anyways the Lugano device is clearly a dead end. Nobody wants an IR heater that saves 3/4 of the energy to heat their house, but only when it’s being looked at through an IR camera.

  • Mark U

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Calculating the approximate maximum Lugano dummy run temperature based on MFMP dogbone test data.

    In the attached document of post #747 there was an error (My bad :( )

    The iteration was based on the total power applied to the MFMP dogbone instead of the power of the ribbed area.

    I redid the iteration for the correct power and the updated iteration table is shown below

    As can be seen, after correcting the error, the estaimated Lugano ECAT dummy run maximum temperature is now 464.1 degree C.

    This is only 0.54 % difference with the reported temperature of 461.6 degree C in the Lugano report.

  • LDM apparently this business became a cold case even if for some of them it was all the time a cold case.. 8)

  • The magic number referred to above is more or less where radiant power begins gaining ground over convection, at the threshold of visible heat radiation.

    Below the “magic number”, about 450-460 C for a ceramic cylinder and most other non-reflective objects, the emissivity settlings can often be fairly sloppy and the results will usually look pretty good.

    For most objects below 450 C, setting the IR emissivity setting to 0.9 will give acceptable results without even knowing what the object is made of.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.