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

I have some of these spare, there was a Russian selling them by the box-full awhile back. No time to pick one up now, but if it seems useful I can sort one out after IWAHLM-16

We should have to discuss about so many topics now soon.. Also about the CUP at Barcelona... The UK boat seems to not be so bad this year.. Strangly the Swiss's one is the worse

Quote from Alan Smith

I have some of these spare, there was a Russian selling them by the box-full awhile back. No time to pick one up now, but if it seems useful I can sort one out after IWAHLM-16

Quote from Cydonia

The UK boat seems to not be so bad this year.

That's because we have Adrian Newey working on the project. Top aerodynamicist and the man behind Red Bull's F1 cars.

ah aaaahh i know this guy he was involved with the crazy Mc Laren/honda time of Senna vs Prost Nice time of real engines.. too not as our current time of Li-On sextoys engines.

Quote from Alan Smith

That's because we have Adrian Newey working on the project. Top aerodynamicist and the man behind Red Bull's F1 cars.

Repost of Davids post #759 since the pictures seems to have disappeared

So In this post they are added again

Rossi's replication remains a tricky business, below some current attempts with the LDM help for the electronic things.. and thoughts.

Here we are talking about former Hotcat's not yet the Lugano's one.

it's shorter 20cm vs 30 cm length.

i'm not yet retired so the time available is very low.

The difficult thing isn't especially the money ( it doesn't cost a lot) but really the time available also find all the suppliers.

Still in progress.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I am sure that LDM can do better, but this calculator (link below) is what I used to determine how much power would be required to get a cylinder of a certain size to a given temperature. Combined with the coil calculator, and a bit of iteration, the best combination of cylinder size and matching coil to heat it can be determined.

It seems to work pretty well overall.

https://thermal.mayahtt.com/tm…linder/horiz-cylinder.htm

There are calculators for other shapes at the same site (ie: cut the url off just before horiz).

Yes i confirm this sketch that's happen exactly like that.

I put 3 TC 120°, so better to take in account the top one..

Almost ten years ago MFMP did a series of physical replications of the Rossi Hot Cat device, which we called "Dogbone". The purpose was to measure and analyze the thermal behavior of of the device as described in the Lugano report. Our findings were published in JCMNS and I've made the relevant part available at

Analysis of the Lugano HotCat Reactor.pdf

Additional comments by Bob Higgins on the spectral emissivity of Alumina can be seen at

MakingSenseOfAluminaSpectralEmissivity_20150419.pdf

Quote from magicsound

Almost ten years ago MFMP did a series of physical replications of the Rossi Hot Cat device, which we called "Dogbone". The purpose was to measure and analyze the thermal behavior of of the device as described in the Lugano report. Our findings were published in JCMNS and I've made the relevant part available at

https://drive.google.com/file/…x7FuH/view?usp=drive_link

And in those 10 years Para and I have stated in this thread that the the thermal measurements the MFMP did where wrong.

That was for example shown by the calculation that the there is a large discrepancy between the applied power and the convected and radiated power of the device.

This is the first check you have to do when having completed your measurements and the MFMP failed to do so.

There where also other errors which where addressed.

What the MFMP also failed to do was entering into a discussion about these issues.

When you are doing serious scientific work, you have to address the possible errors shown by others, even if already a large time has passed.

Since the MFMP failed to do so I Iost my respect for the MFMP, even if I was initially a major donor.

LDM I don't recall the dispute you described. In our work and its report, we simply measured the joule power input and the surface temperatures of the device, using the same instruments as described in the Lugano document. We also used a calibrated pyrometer to cross check temperatures. We found that our measurements differed from what was reported at Lugano. We considered only the two variables, joule heater power and external surface temperature of the device, and compared our data to what was reported for the Hot Cat. We aimed to exclude convective and radiative factors by duplicating the morphology and materials of the device, within the limits of available details. Those limits were discussed in our report, and perhaps formed the basis of the objections you and others might have made. So in retrospect, this was an engineering project rather than a scientific experiment to test a hypothesis. We had nothing to prove or disprove in doing it.

Quote from magicsound

LDM I don't recall the dispute you described. In our work and its report, we simply measured the joule power input and the surface temperatures of the device, using the same instruments as described in the Lugano document. We also used a calibrated pyrometer to cross check temperatures. We found that our measurements differed from what was reported at Lugano. We considered only the two variables, joule heater power and external surface temperature of the device, and compared our data to what was reported for the Hot Cat. We aimed to exclude convective and radiative factors by duplicating the morphology and materials of the device, within the limits of available details. Those limits were discussed in our report, and perhaps formed the basis of the objections you and others might have made. So in retrospect, this was an engineering project rather than a scientific experiment to test a hypothesis. We had nothing to prove or disprove in doing it.

See post 406 about the MFMP using a fixed value of n

See post 445 about the errors between apllied power compared to radiated and convected error

See post 447 about the possible use of another ceramic

See post 448 for a thermal FEM simulation of the MFMP dogbone

See post 736 about the possible different emissivity of the MFMP dogbone

We have seen that you where following this thread in the past so i can not immage that you where not aware of these comments on the MFM{ dogbone thermal evaluation,

Nevertheless we never got a reaction.

LDM

If you click on the hash tag symbol next to the post number in the top right hand corner of every post it will generate a code you can copy and paste into another post- ir indeed anywhere you wish to share it. The one below for example refers back to your post above.

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

Quote from magicsound

We considered only the two variables, joule heater power and external surface temperature of the device, and compared our data to what was reported for the Hot Cat. We aimed to exclude convective and radiative factors by duplicating the morphology and materials of the device, within the limits of available details.

So, you are saying that emissivity cannot affect your comparison? You did not use an IR system to measure power? (Or you did not depend on one.)

You probably described all of this but I have forgotten the details. Forgive me for not going back to read your reports.

LDM

Regarding your post #447, The preliminary BOM for the Dogbone experiment initially had the castable ceramic Vitcast 1200 INH. However, the document linked in post #739 shows that what we used was Cotroics RTC-70 castable pure alumina. That agrees with my recollection since I mixed the stuff to make the Dogbone. That said, your point about emissivity may be valid in that the composition of the Lugano Hot Cat outer structure is not known in detail.

We were aware of the importance of emissivity and planned for its analysis early in the experimental campaign. Here’s a quote from our document dated 2 Feb 2015:

• Key questions to answer:
  • How well did the emissivity curve
    they used match various samples of our cast and purchased alumina?
  • Can the Williamson Pyrometer add
    insight about the actual emissivity and surface temperature?
  • With our best guess of alumina
    emissivity, how well can we match what the thermocouple is reading?

Regarding your post #448, you claim that a FEM model calculation of the Dogbone device produced more accurate data than actual measurements of the real device made with high quality instruments. I must respectfully disagree; that is not the kind of science I practice.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If there is any interest in reviving Lugano, then let the Lugano IR camera recordings and the original protagonists speak for themselves once more.

I would agree were this just a rehash of the endless (did he have something) Rossi debate, but it sounds to me like LDM represents a small group of people trying to replicate the HotCat -an earlier version of the Lugano. In other words, they are doing something other than talk. David is one of them, or maybe the only one, doing the work? Anyway, he has expressed some confidence in his efforts, which I take to mean he may be getting positive results. His IWAHLM16 poster won first place, so maybe he/they are onto something?

So, I say we encourage this thread. No telling where the big breakthrough we have been waiting for will come from. It may be one of the big, well funded, teams such as the USNavy/CleanHME, Safire, or Cydonia .

To all

magicsound i highly respect all the deep things you done at your laboratory's home with years, really

About BobHiggins he was also a masterpiece, i have had the opportunity to exchange with him a while, in the far past.

Now magicsound and/or Paradigmnoia about the Lugano's case we don't have to speak maintly about the calorimetry or measurements means, you first of all, have to understand how ot works !!!!

We don't have to talk about some powders we put inside as suggested @BobGryner or done @Parkhomov...

A confidence, magnetic gradients are important did you expected that ?

Shane D. yes unfortunatelly things took me to long time because i'm not yet retired..

However i'm involved currently in a classic hotcat, i already done several attempts ( where IRs gradients are the key this way)

Next another way, i plan in a similar theoretical way than the Lugano's one but not from Rossi this way, an attempt by a D2/N2 plasma, xsh also done by neutrons spallation.

Now, as i would like to work full time on LENR, i would like doing a start up, this is the reason i can't disclose to all what i know , you should understand..

Now if some of you are really interested i can only collaborate by deep policy.