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

Few questions to Working Group and Authors of TPR2:

Q1) Did you measured the electrical resistance of the Hot-Cat heating resistors (at least its value at ambient temperature)?

Q2) If the answer (a) is yes, what about its ohmic value you measured?

Q3) Can you publish the technical data-sheet of the Hot-Cat heating resistors or can you supply the Hot-Cat heating resistors P/N and Manufacturer?

Q4) Which was the type (exact P/N) of each of three PCE Current Clamps that you used in conjuction with both PCE-830 instruments? The PCE-6801? PCE-6802 or whatelse?

Q5) Considering the lacking of evidences about electrical measures of TPR2, can you supply more significant PCE-830 data (recorded data or by means of images, not OL values) in order to testify power consumption values measured by PCE-830 during Dummy run and during Hot-Cat run?

Q6) As done in past by means of an Appendix to TPR1, can you publish also a significant examples of all Voltages and Currents waveforms, Phasors diagram recorded by both PCE-830 (at least those of one of the two PCE-830) on the three phases lines during Dummy run and Hot-Cat run?

Q7) During Hot-Cat set-up or run did you connect the Neutral line from grid to one or both PCE-830 Neutral input?

Q8) You wrote: "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."

Can you describe exactly what did you done (better is a schematic) and the set-up electrical connections of both PCE-830? Did you also connected the Earthing to PCE-830?

Q9) Was the Main Power in Lugano (the power network used) a 3-Phase system having 230Vac Line-to-Line voltages or the standard 3-Phase Line-to-Line 400Vac?

Q10) About PCE-830 which type of power parameter measurement and analysis you used:
1P3W, 3P3W, 3P4W ? Were the electric lines, connected from grid to the Control System of Hot-Cat, just the three phases without Neutral line or not?

Thanks.

Regards

Inconsistencies in current waveforms published in : Levi et al. “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel” (referred to as TPR2), and related : Levi et al. “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device “(referred to as TPR1).
Andrea S. , 14 October 2014, [reedited 23 Nov 2014]

I hate to say this, but the plot in TPR2 figure 5 and page 6, although not on a readable scale, may be revealing.

Please refer to
http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123566844_1.pdf
for a better reading.

The PCE-830, when displaying voltage and current waveforms ,normally synchronizes all waveforms to the upwards zero-crossing of the V1 waveform when present, or of the I1 waveform if V1 is not available, and sets the timescale to one period.

The displayed I3 waveform is determined by the triacs closure. Current flows when the triac on V3 is closed at the same time as V1 or V2, and it is a fair assumption that all three triacs are commanded with the same conduction angle (since a single feedback is used for all).

Now the displayed waveform for I3, is not the one would expect, neither with clockwise nor with counter-clockwise three-wire three-phase connection

The plot in TPR2 figure 5, instead is well matched by a negative I3 plot in the CCW connection, such as would result from inverting the clamp ammeter. [Note: this statement has been challenged, as the I3 plot seems to trigger at the beginning of the timescale. I thank Franco (who writes on the Cobraf Forum) for his sound technical advice and S. Caggia (22passi blog) for his constructive criticism ].

Now, the effect of reverting the I3 probe would be to underestimate the actual input power by a factor 3, i.e. close to the declared COP.

[ A later analysis, admitting the downstream PCE-830 to be connected 4-wire by using the upstream neutral (although the neutral is not shown in the TPR2), does find a plausible reading that fits the peaks' orientation in the TPR2 figure 5. On the other hand, the same analysis shows that current pulsewidth in figure 5 is compatible with a 3KW consumption (implying COP around 1), whereas the 0.9kW consumption declared by the authors would yield much narrower pulses. The updated analysis can be found in

http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123571297_1.pdf .

Once more the authors should better describe their setup, clarify the instance when the plot was taken, clarify if the measurement was 4-wire, and justify the apparent 3KW consumption resulting. The reversed clamp hypothesis remains the one that best fits the three-fold power underestimation .]

It does appear absurd that such a gross mistake could have happened. What is most disturbing is that a similar discrepancy on the PCE-830 plots happened in the TPR1.

In the TPR1 the I1 waveform similarly appeared inverted with respect to the one expected, such as would result by inverting the current probe.

When simulating the circuit on a spreadsheet, with triac conduction angle set for low regimes (as in the experiment setup) the probe reversal results in overestimating the input power.

But when the triac conduction angle is set for high regimes (as in the experiment run), the probe reversal results in underestimating the input power by a factor 2.7, close to the claimed COP.

Conclusion: the discrepancies in the published current waveforms, unless otherwise explained, hint to a gross mistake in misplacing a clamp ammeter as a plausible explanation for the apparent energy gain in both TPR1 and TPR2. The authors, for their own sake and that of the scientific community, are invited to provide sufficient evidence (additional photos, raw data, non-ambiguous explanations) that such an occurrence can be excluded.

Dear authors,

Given the temperatures that the reactor had been operating in actual operation, many of the constituents of the fuel powder would have either melted, vaporized, or sintered to the inside of the reactor core vessel. Thus, when removing the ash for test, the components that emerged may be completely unrepresentative of the active components which may have remained firmly attached to the inside of the reactor vessel. Perhaps only more benign and refractory components could have been extracted after the experiment. Thus, the analysis of this ash material should not necessarily be directly compared with the powder input at the beginning of the experiment as a before and after reaction analysis.

Given this, the question arises, did the starting powder that was supplied by Rossi as "about 1 g" actually represent the active powder of the reaction? If the reactor had been used before, its ceramic core may not have been virgin. There could remain remnants, perhaps intentionally active remnants, sintered to the inside of the reaction tube. In which case, Rossi may have supplied only the consumables - perhaps mostly hydride. This would make analysis of the input powder of less value because it is not the whole fuel for his reaction.

My question is, "Had the reactor used in this experiment ever been used by anyone for an active LENR test prior to the test conducted by your group? Conversely, was the reactor virgin in the respect of having never before been used for a LENR reaction?"

Of course, this will still not entirely answer the question of whether the input powder was actually representative of the entire active LENR material. It could be that the active Ni portion had already been sintered onto the inside of the reactor vessel as part of preparing the apparatus. Then Rossi would only have added the consumable portion at the beginning of the experiment. Even if this active material had been sintered onto the inside of the reactor, it would not have been active in the dummy experiment without the consumable portion having been added.

Would it be possible to perform additional SIMS analysis on the fuel specimens? Have you retained these? If so, and you can select a different ion source, without Ga-69 present, then we may be able to determine if the mass 69 peaks represent an intermediate species of the main reaction. I believe the the spectra in the SIMS report displays evidence for in-situ evolution of a mass-69 species during sputter-cleaning. See this post for further details:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…0eskimo.com/msg98596.html

If an additional analysis can be arranged, then perhaps an analysis that includes isotope fractions as a function of depth from the surface will reveal further information about the nature of the reactions.

Thank you!
-Bob Ellefson

Were the heater wires within the reactor embedded in ceramic, or wound around an inner core tube containing the fuel, this has major implications as to the heat transfer from the wires being radiative or conductive and may indicate whether or not there was a possibility of large errors in calculated power outputs.

My question is who let Mary Yugo into the forum?

My question to the testers is now that youve completed the month long test how enthusiastic are you about the future of LENR and the Ecat in particular.

In fig 12b the wire external to the left end of the reactor is visibly brighter than the wire lines in the reactor (or brightest surface areas of reactor), hence hotter. So given that inconel cannot survive temperatures greater than about 1300-1350°C and higher temperature refractory metal wires cannot survive exposure to air, does that not imply that the reactor surface is <<1400°C and that the thermography is therefore grossly exaggerating the reactor surface temperature for some reason?

The wire within the insulated environment of the reactor is necessarily hotter than outside, and some suggest that may be possibly by using a refractory wire, are you aware of any method that might make it possible to bond an inconel wire within this insulated oxygen free environment to a refractory wire that is above its melting temperature?

What temperature then would the reactor surface need to be in order for the 900W output of the wires inside the reactor to not raise these wires above the melting point of inconel as necessitated by their being either made of inconel or bonded to the inconel wires?

Why were no readings from the control system thermocouple published?

was any attempt made to measure the air temperature underneath the reactor as it was preheated by passing through the frame underneath? This would increase its temperature and lower its density making the simple free-tube convection heat transfer estimates rather higher than reality.

Last paragraph of fuel and ashes analysis:
"Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash."

It means that all the C, CA, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn content of the fuel was completely trasmutated into someting else? Have you any explanation for this apparently impossibile finding?

Dear authors,

Please explain the X3 inconsistency between your power in measurements between dummy and active tests as output by the power analyser and as determined from the measured input currents. There would appear to be a X3 (approximately) undermeasurement of power consumption on the active tests, if, as you convincingly argue, the dummy test input power is correctly measured.

Full description with technical details here.

I think this is partially a duplicate of the questions here but maybe more focussed on what is a certain anomaly in the published data.

If you look carefully at my post you will see in this case I make no assumption of errors. The figures given in the report are inconsistent - they show there must be an error, or else a metal alloy with resistance temperature characteristics unknown to man. They show the magnitude of the error is roughly X3.3.

You might find it useful to consider my specific point, which has no such assumptions.

I watched every video and article I could find on the e-Cat and finally came across his history (http://freeenergyscams.com/the…-of-andrea-rossi-part-5a/). I remembered a video where he didn’t want to discuss his past. That was the first alarm bell right there. I went back and watched (

) and can see how easily he could fool people. Little things don’t add up which make me very suspicious. The Ammeter shows 3.4A. He doesn’t show the voltage we have to take his word at 220V for Italy. It could be 660V. The wiring inside the control box just look like he has thrown a pile in there to look complicated when the real power cable goes in at the back on the bottom and probably goes straight back out to the running e-cat. I suspect it’s just a heater element in the e-Cat. The pump is on a different circuit (the power board runs to a different GPO) and is not included in his calculations. The amount of steam is less than my kettle. We have to take his word that they are going through 7kg of water an hour. I smell a rat. As for his 1MW plant why was there a massive diesel generator running and making it hard for people to hear their own thoughts. Whats it powering? Is it because mains can’t supply what he need to run the 1MW plant? He should be investigated before any other big businesses are sucked in. I think I read he has experience in thermoelectrics which makes me think it would be simple for him to hook up a TEG (http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xteg+module&_nkw=teg+module&_sacat=0) and run it stand alone and really knock the socks off everyone. To many questions and not enough answers. I bet he put in the Cu in the night before the test. I wonder who else is in on it. I’m done with Rossi. I’ll look for LENR elsewhere. I say he’s a snake oil salesman and I’m confident it will eventually be shown he has wasted mine and your time, and hard earned $$$ of the investors if they are real (who knows they may be in on it).

We heard from the JONP that peer review was ongoing for month.
But there is doubt wether the paper failed peer review in the end
or reviewers refused to touch the hot cat from the beginning.

Therefore my short question is:

"Has happend peer review at all?"

If you are willing to tell more about this topic, pls. feel free to do so!