Ask questions to the Working Group - ECAT long-term test

  • Working group will answer questions!
    The authors of the long term test-report of the hot-cat had offered us the possibility to ask them a bunch of questions. Our idea is that YOU can post your question to the authors of the report here in this thread.


    At the end we will together select which questions (let's say up to 10) we will actually send to them. You can do this by simply upvote your favorite question as seen in the picture below ;)


    Update 2014-10-25
    The Working Group is not able to give us the answers right away, but they promise to take in what we write.
    I guess we'll see an updated report that takes insperation from this thread.




    Please, think through the issue and explain in detail.
    Also, appreciate if the member can be pressent in this thread.

  • Dear authors,
    1.
    How does your relationship with Industrial Heat look? Is there anything you're not allowed to do according to your eventual agreements that could impede your scientific work?


    2.
    What did Industrial Heat/Rossi know about the measurement setup and equipment to be used before the testing took place?

  • Dear authors,


    Your summary states that the reaction was primed by heating and some electro-magnetic stimulation. It appears that the electro-magnetic stimulation mentioned was due to the current flow supplied to the system and not induced separately. Is that correct?


    Secondly, what do you surmise is the suggested role (if any) that electro-magnetic stimulation alone might play in this process?

  • Have there been any tests performed to determine the energy requirements to create the fuel? It is certainly not "free" to grind the nickel to appropriate sized powder and infuse it with the essential mix of catalysts. While I'm sure this is less than the energy surplus of the reaction, it should be factored into the COP

  • Three sets of questions:


    1. Many people are concerned that Rossi himself was the one to turn the reactor on and off and also to insert and remove the charge. Can you explain why his intervention at each of these steps was necessary? What is involved in turning the reactor on and off? Also, can you tell us what steps were taken by the researchers to ensure that the extracted charge (ash) was not somehow switched by Rossi after he extracted it from the reactor?


    2.Figure 5 of the report shows a picture of the PCE-830 device "downstream from the control unit." On the screen it appears that the unit is reporting overload ("OL") on numerous parameters, indicating that the unit is being used outside its range, which would presumably render it unreliable or simply inaccurate. What can you tell us about the OL parameters and the reliability/accuracy of the device under these conditions? Did the upstream device also show "OL" for the same parameters?


    3. Is it possible that the device drew high frequency power from the mains that was undetectable by the power meters due to being outside the measurement range of the device?

  • The report says, "A thermocouple probe, inserted into one of the caps, allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by measuring the internal temperature of the reactor."


    Did you view and record the readings from this thermocouple?




  • <p>I second the first part of <a class="userLink" href="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/451-joshg/?" id="wcf4" rel="author">joshg </a>questions. The exact extent of Rossi's involvement is not really a concern IMHO, but every single accuser of this being a Hoax insists that Rossi had the chance of performing some sort of swap or trick at that moment.&nbsp;</p>


    <p>The indication of OL in the instrument display is also of interest to be commented, perhaps is nothing, but I was not aware of it, and would be good to know if the experimenters are aware of it.</p>


    <p>I have read the report thoroughly and feel that most issues are well explained besides the overall sources of error are taken on the coservative side so the possibilities of errors in the energy balance is not a concern, at least for me. The allegation of a sophisticated pulsed power source being used rely only in the idea that this is impossible, so for me are not even to be taken seriously, but if the team would give their opinion about this so called &quot;argument&quot; it could put the issue to rest.&nbsp;</p>


    <p>My main concer is that the report creates much more questions than answers (by far the most intriguing at least for me is: Why no radiation?). So I would like to know if the team is considering further research on their own and/or with collaboration of IH or others for further elucidation of the mechanisms behind, and if they have some ide of what coudl be happening here, or if they have some working hypothesis.</p>


    <p>Finally, if they can give their personal point of view about how puzzled and or intrigued by the results they are, it could also be of use, at least for me.</p>


    Edit to add: The question of Jed Rothwell is also interesting. I understood that this thermocouple was part of the control system and as such I thought it was not connected to the data register. But the logged readings of this, if available, would cast more light on the already impressive results.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Following the report:
    "All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated
    in their respective manufacturers’ laboratories. Moreover, once in Lugano, a further check was made to
    ensure that the PCEs and the IR cameras were not yielding anomalous readings. For this purpose, before the
    official commencement of the test, both PCEs were individually connected to the power mains selected for
    powering the reactor. For each of the three phases, readings returned a value of 230 ± 2V, which is
    appropriate for an industrial establishment power network."
    So we learn:
    Input is 230 V AC for one phase of three!
    Page 5 / Figure 4:
    Input is 380 V AC (for 3 phase?) ->should be 400 V AC for three phases!)


    Mains power source is:
    a: 1 phase -> 230 V AC?
    b: 3 phase -> 400 V AC?
    Please make a statement on the mains power input!





    Please also explain:
    SW (Switch between the XXX V AC mains and the PCE 830 A)
    What is (SW) in detail?


    THX!

  • The problem of the transparency of alumina body to visible light, raised question about the possibility that it trouble the IR cam.
    From some surveys of literature, alumina is not transparent for 7um+ IR light, which are used by the IR cam. Do you confirm both the window of transparence of alumina , and the fact that the IR cam use wavelength that are blocked by alumina ?


    Moreover do you confirm that the reading of temperature by zone with the IR cam was not influences by the fact that some measured zone were visibly bright, and some not ?


    would it be possible to run new tests to rule out those questions?

  • A group of four scientists has suggested that Eng. Rossi somehow spiked the "ash" with nickel and lithium isotopes. Is there any possibility that they are correct? Did you, or did Eng. Rossi remove the ash from the reactor core? Was Eng. Rossi ever alone with the reactor core after it had been run for 32 days?

  • Can you provide information about the accuracy of the ToF-SIMS and ICP-MS analysis results? According to the exact results, there appears to be an isotope fraction gradient between the surface and bulk contents of the ash sample for both Lithium and Nickel. Surface Li-6 reads as 92.1% enriched (appendix 3 table 1) but the bulk analysis with ICP-MS shows Li-6 enriched to 57.5%, while Ni-62 inversely varies from 98.7% in the surface to 99.3% in the bulk. Are these results within accuracy limits of the instruments? Do you think these implied isotope fraction gradients between surface and bulk could be real? I note that the ICP-AES results show only 0.03% of the sample mass was lithium - could this affect the results?


    If this inverse isotope fraction gradient does exist for both the lithium and nickel ash grains, do you think this could indicate something about the different reactants that are present during steady-state reactor operation versus reactor shut-down conditions?

  • Would you please explain the significance of the variability of a mass 69 signal in the ToF-SIMS results? Is this certain to be entirely instrumentation artifact, or could there also be a mass 69 species from the samples present in some of these spectra?

  • Figures 12a and b show the reactor was incandescent at times. Dark portions towards the end of the reactor and at the caps were at a lower temperature, and were not incandescent. Figure 10 shows that the IR camera reading were split into 10 zones for the cylinder, and additional zone for the caps.


    At the time the photos in Fig. 12 were taken, what temperatures were recorded by the IR camera for the 10 zones and the caps? Was there a very large difference between these temperatures?


    I ask this because questions have been raised about the source of the incandescence, and the transmissivity of alumina. It seems to me that if the incandescent light is coming from inside the reactor, and the temperature reading on the surface is an instrument error, then the real temperature must be roughly 750 deg C, and the false temperature reading in the incandescent portion must be on the order of 1300 to 1500 deg C. Such large temperature differences are not possible, because alumina is a good thermal conductor.


    By the way, a correspondent wrote to me with another reason to doubt this hypothesis. This is not an exact quote, but he wrote:


    A quick look a the literature shows transmissivity of alumina quickly drops to zero past ~7 micron wavelength. Much of the data seems to be in relation to the crystalline variant (e.g sapphire) vs non-crystalline.


    http://www.janis.com/Libraries…nCurveDataSheet.sflb.ashx


    Notice the Ecat report clearly states on page 4 “The spectral range for both cameras is from 7.5 to 13 μm.” That seems to indicate that any transmitted IR through the alumina wouldn’t be detected by the IR cameras.

  • It has been said the Rossi switched the fuel core to cheat the test, what kind substitute fuel could have provided the results you measured if he switched the reactor core before and after the testing to fool you?


    Did your team do further research to determine the nature of the physical process generating the heat?


    Will there be further papers coming out based upon the research you have already done?


    Will you be doing further research, into the nature of the process, and how do you plan to approach that?


    Do you know enough to speculate on whether the process could be modified to directly produce electricity?


    Is this in your opinion a unique area of conventional physics, or is there new physics involved which will require new theory outside standard conventions?


    Is there a potential for this to be implemented in highly dangerous ways by backyard replicators, aside from the potential to detonate small quantities of pressurized hydrogen? IE: radiation, large rapid energy releases.


    Are you free to continue research with the devices supplied by Industrial Heat?


    Do you still have possession of any working Industrial Heat devices?


    Do you have any projection for what the maximum COP for a single stage device will ultimately be?


    Do you think the process can be modified to transmute rare elements from common ones?


    If you consider the energy released as coming from only the materials transmuted what might the energy density look like compared to fission fuels?


    Might the value of the fuel to energy ratio be beyond what conventional nuclear reactions can provide; Is there potentially a greater quantum potential being tapped?


    Do you sense that you are receiving a reasonable treatment from the physics community as a whole?


    Will you be ostracized for looking at the work of an outsider?


    How far do you think the technology is from having optimized efficiency?


    Do you have any concepts for better approaches to implement the process: Higher temperatures, meta material, manufactured reaction sites, solid state cores, larger scale?


    Why do you think your work is already being attacked as savagely as it has been?

  • Dear Testers,


    THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to the power of 10 for all of your hard work, courage, integrity, and sacrifices.


    Could you be so kind as to answer us this question each individually, if possible. How have things been socially and professionally since May 2013 and now after this latest test report. Have you lost friends? Have you gained new friends? Have people been abusive? Have you been fired? Have you tossed and turned at night. My question is all of that and anything else of a social, emotional, and professional nature.


    Sincerely,


    Roger Bird
    Colorado Springs

  • From Barry Kort on the extremetech.com Forum


    - Analysis of the Assumption of an Ideal Isothermal Black Body Radiation Model -


    In the iconic photo of the device under test, one can see the apparatus with the red-hot glowing wires visible through the translucent 3mm thick alumina casing.
    This is a significant observation, because it's the principle source of evidence that the thin alumina shell is translucent and not 100% opaque.


    Why does that matter? It matters because the IR camera equipment that is used to reckon the heat coming out of the device assumes that the alumina shell is an isothermal black body radiator operating at the emissivity of alumina at a specific temperature. But that conveniently simple energy budget model breaks down if the alumina casing is not 100% opaque. As can be seen in the photograph, some of the photons from the interior apparatus are being transmitted through the translucent shell, rather than being absorbed by it. When those directly transmitted photons impinge upon the IR camera, which is calibrated for the emissivity of alumina, the calculation model incorrectly assumes the alumina shell itself is glowing red hot in accordance with a black body radiation model. This results in a sizable systematic error in reckoning the heat being produced by the device.

  • The isotopic analysis of the ashes show really huge anomalies, that raise concern even to Rossi's team.
    What are the possibilities of error that are possible, and those that have been well mitigated .


    some people also comment on the tendencies of some instruments to be biased on Lithium, what are the know bias, and the mitigation procedure you used.
    If the absolute value is biased, does it have an impact on the comparative isotopic shift, at least on the qualitative result.


    You measured with few different methods which agree on some shifts, but not exactly. It can be a question of distribution, or bias.
    Can you consider that even if the detail of the isotopic shift may be biased, there is incontrovertible evidence of some important isotopic shift, or do you consider that some experimental error may allow result error even at the qualitative level.

  • When the reactor was opened almost all Ni has been converted to Ni-62 and almost all Li has been converted to Li-6. If the energy produced was orginated in that nuclear reactions, how would explain not have noticed a decrease in reactor performance as the original isotopes were disappearing?

  • Dear scientists,


    thanks for your work and for your courage to deal with all those pseudo-intelligent sophists who have blinkers on.
    You are like a modern Sokrates. Hopefully the combined idiocy of half-witted ignorance will not succed in trying to bring the same fate to you as back then they did to the father of philosophy!


    Your summary states that the reaction was primed by heating and some electro-magnetic stimulation. It appears that the electro-magnetic stimulation mentioned was due to the current flow supplied to the system and not induced separately. Is that correct?


    Secondly, what do you surmise is the suggested role (if any) that electro-magnetic stimulation alone might play in this process?


    I wanna expand on this topic: the current, and a term I was missing: Plasma.


    1. Could the Elecrons flow outside of the cables? Could Electrons have interacted directly with the fuel? More precisely: Would it have been possible that Electrons from the current remained in the reactor? Would it have been possible to measure it (the loss of Electrons in the current)?
    2. Could the fuel or other parts of the reactor have turned into Plasma?
    3. Could there have been Electron Captures?
    (Plasma physics is somewhat undetermined. Maybe the combination of high temperature, electric current and oscillating electro-magnetic fields creates a special form of Plasma where Electron Capture (or other nuclear reactions) happen more easily.)
    4. Was there an attempt to measure Neutrinos?
    (I guess not. If they were not measured / detected than there could have been nuclear reactions with radioactive activity as in the case of Electron Capture.)


    Yours,
    Pyrphoros.


    PS:
    Maybe in this reactor a free proton is able to merge with an electron to create a free neutron (which would then join other atoms)...

  • Dear Testers:


    I have referred to Appendix 4 on page 53 of the ECAT Report dealing with the ICP-MS and ICP-AES analysis of the fuel and the ash. The last paragraph on this page states that the fuel contained high concentrations of the elements C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn but these were not found in the ash. As I'm sure you are aware Inductively Coupled Mass Spectrometry is very sensitive being able to detect metals as well as some non metals down to 1 part per trillion. (One part in 10 to the minus 12).


    Do you have any explanation why these elements were totally absent in the ash. Is it possible that the sample size was too small?

  • Thank you for the opportunity to ask questions! That's great.


    1. Why did you not constrain the input power by interposing your own precisely metered and current limited power source ahead of Rossi's mains cord? Clamp on meters can be fooled with trick wiring. For example have you seen this video?



    2. Why did you not conduct the blank/dummy run at the same power level and under identical conditions to the active run over the same power range? If the reactor can stand the heat of the reaction, what difference does it make if it gets its heat from the heater? Did you ask Rossi if the heater or chamber would be damaged and why?


    3. Why does a highly exothermic device need a Joule heater in order to run? After all, the reaction generates about three times the heat compared to the heater and in the same volume! Rossi has said it's for safety. Exactly how does adding heat to a potent heat source make it safer?


    4. Why were you testing this difficult high temperature device when you could have asked to test the original ecat? It has a water jacket, makes not 3 but 15-20 kW for 18 hours from a pinch of fuel, and does not exceed 150 degrees temperature. Or so claimed Levi and Rossi! A way more efficient machine, if you believe them. Enthalpy is obtained from liquid flow calorimetry and calibration is simple with the built in heater. Levi showed this in 2011 but he uh... lost the data. And refused to duplicate the run. I always wondered why that was. Do you know?


    Levi's report is here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter…energi/article3108242.ece


    5. Oh, almost forgot. Why did you allow Rossi to handle the experimental equipment when the test was supposed to be independent of him? And did someone watch him closely at ALL times? Was he ever alone with the reactor?



    Thank you!


    PS: I'm jokingly rough on you folks in forums so please feel free to reciprocate!


    Mary Yugo

  • question on the blank power limit are interesting Mary.
    as written in the report they were limited by fear of damaging the electric circuit if running at same power as the active ...


    so my question is what is the absolute limit of power that could be fed into the reactor before it is sure the cable will clearly show visible sign of overload and eventualy sure destruction. the idea is to know, given the observations what is the absolute limite of power possibly "smuggled" into the reactor.


    about wiring, did you do the wiring yourself?
    Were the cables on which you installed the entry current clamp, came from ?


    Were the cable between the controlbox and the reactor provided by Industrial heat ?
    did you wire it yourself or was it prewired by IH ?
    did you inspect, unplug, unscrew, the wire between control box and reactor, and can you confirm it is a single conductor and not a coaxial one?


    What components were provided by Industrial heat, and what were from yourselfs ? (especially about cables, and meter)


    I know most question are answered in the report or are ruled out by the result, but it is better to be repeated.


    About the people making the test :


    Is there among the testers someone having been affiliated to a skeptic society ?


    It seems that most of the testers are retired and that one of the not retired participant to the previous test, did not participate this one . Was there academic pressure against this scientist ?


    Can you confirm that Stephan Pomp, as he said on his blog himself, was proposed to participate that test, and as he said himself on his blog, declined the offer ?
    At least if you cannot confirm it is true for privacy reason, can you confirm this was not a false claim.


    Did Stephan pomp proposed a document, or a list of point to check ?
    Was there interesting remarks in Pomp&Eriksson paper published on Arxiv that you addressed in that test ?

  • Can you reply to this comment made by Barry Kort, a scientist (not sure) at MIT ?


    "Analysis of the Assumption of an Ideal Isothermal Black Body Radiation Model In the iconic photo of the device under test, one can see the apparatus with the red-hot glowing wires visible through the translucent 3mm thick alumina casing.This is a significant observation, because it's the principle source of evidence that the thin alumina shell is translucent and not 100% opaque.Why does that matter? It matters because the IR camera equipment that is used to reckon the heat coming out of the device assumes that the alumina shell is an isothermal black body radiator operating at the emissivity of alumina at a specific temperature. But that conveniently simple energy budget model breaks down if the alumina casing is not 100% opaque. As can be seen in the photograph, some of the photons from the interior apparatus are being transmitted through the translucent shell, rather than being absorbed by it. When those directly transmitted photons impinge upon the IR camera, which is calibrated for the emissivity of alumina, the calculation model incorrectly assumes the alumina shell itself is glowing red hot in accordance with a black body radiation model. This results in a sizable systematic error in reckoning the heat being produced by the device.


    Imagine looking at an ordinary household light fixture with a typical translucent shade around the bulb. The filament inside the bulb is at an incandescent temperature, but it also has a very small surface area. When you look at the light fixture with the translucent shade in place, you see those same photons, but now they appear to come from the large surface of the translucent shade. If you imagine the shade to be the originating source of those photons, in accordance with a black body radiation model, you (incorrectly) deduce that the shade itself is glowing at that same incandescent temperature. Since the shade has orders of magnitude more surface area than the filament inside the light bulb, you end up concluding (incorrectly) that an enormous amount of heat is being produced.


    In short, the experimenters have to reckon the translucency of the 3mm alumina shell that encases the apparatus, and adopt a corresponding energy budget model. Since that's probably not practical in their laboratory setup, they instead could encase the entire apparatus in a fully opaque isothermal shell, so as to be able to properly apply their isothermal black body radiation measurement technique to the system."


    Thank you!!

  • I'd like know how the reactor was opened and how the ash was extracted. Is it a coincidence that the reactor is double ended and symmetrical, thus allowing the old trick of inserting one thing in one end (fuel) and removing something completely different from the other (ash). This would of course require some sort of partial or complete obstruction half way down the tube depending of whether the fuel was inserted in powder form or in some sort of enclosure.
    My other concern is the calibration of the power meters. I note they were checked for voltage accuracy, but how about current. If the meters were interfered with, the obvious approach would be placing attenuators on the current clamp inputs since voltage input is fixed and would be easy to spot.
    Were these meters supplied from the same source as the previous test?
    The issue raised by Mith about the translucency of the alumina shell could be easily checked by powering up an empty reactor tube. It would not be an unreasonable request to test an empty reactor.