Lugano e-cat test report power in measurement anomaly

  • I'm going to draw some conclusions from the published data in the Lugano Report. I know that others have done similar calculations, but maybe not laid them out with care and clarity.


    The measurements I'm going to look at are those for Joule heating in the wires feeding the reactor, and those for total power delivered to the reactor from the control unit. Both sets of measurements are made by the same instrument - a 3 phase power analyser. The Joule heating is calculated from the feed wire (mostly copper) resistivity and the measured RMS current in the wires. The total input power is derived from the power meter. The report authors do not state exactly how this is done but the instrument is very capable and can internally calculate and display many powers. Of particular relevance here it can calculate the total power, and the phase power, which differ by a factor of 3.


    The report contains the following measurements for the three cases of dummy test, 1250C test, and 1400C test.


    Test Joule heating power in leads/W Total supplied power/W ratio
    dummy (500C) 6.7 486 75.54
    active (1250C) 36.8 796.7 21.65
    active (1400C) 41.7 912.4 21.88


    The point is that these measurements are all made by the same equipment, and although assumptions such as the resistivity of the leads etc may be incorrect, the ratio of these powers will always indicate the ratio in resistance of the leads and the Inconel wire heating element. We know the leads are mostly copper and also don't vary much in temperature, so there would seem to be a change in resistivity of the heating element by a factor of 3.3 between the dummy tests and the two active tests.


    Interestingly the hotter active test (an extra 150C) does not change the resistivity, as shown by this ratio, by more than 1%. So we have an anomalous 300% change from 500C to 1250C, and a 1% change from 1250C to 1400C.


    That is inconceivable, especially because data on Inconel 625 (a high temperature Inconel alloy such as was presumably used) shows less than 5% change over the range 20C to 1090C. See data here.


    So we have a X3.3 anomaly in the two methods of measuring power. Either the dummy is wrong or the active test is wrong. We know the dummy is correct (to within 10%) because it matched measured power out. Therefore the dummy ratio is approximately correct, 75, and the correct input power for the active runs is some 3.3X larger than the report power measurement for these cases.


    That would make the correct measured COP around 1


    Only the report authors can explain how this anomaly came about, but I have a suggestion. Three phase power meters can display phase power or total power. If the equipment was set to total power for the dummy measurement, and set to phase power for the active measurements, it would make a typically X3 difference in the data which would leave an anomaly of only 10%. This could be a result of a small resistivity change and other errors, such as asymmetry of power between the three phases caused by resistance variations causing phase power for a given phase to be different from the typical 1/3 of total power.


    The comments above are based solely on the information contained in the published report. I am making no inferences or assumptions about the likelihood or not of LENR, or any matters relating to the probity of the testers or Rossi.


    I hope that those who believe this test adds to the evidence for Rossi's e-cat actually having nuclear-level power production will suggest a hypothesis that explains this data in some way consistent with that. I also hope that the authors of the report will identify the error and rewrite the report with consistent data. I note that they have said they may change the report to reflect comment on questions. Perhaps the change in this case could include a description of why the original measurements were inconsistent by a factor of approximately 3 as well as the corrected measurements.


    My question, for the authors of the report, would be to explain the above anomaly. In that context it might help to have more information about how the power measurements were taken from the power meter, and whether any checks were made that the measurements taken were in fact identical in the dummy and active run cases. If stored data from the power meter is available this should help to elucidate the matter. Precise information on measurements (are reported currents RMS or average) would also help.


    Best wishes, Tom

  • Dear Thomas,


    the following is written in the Report concerning the dummy, where you get your table value 6.7 for Joule heating power in leads/W. (Page 14)



    The other values for the active E-Cat in your table are the mean values of the measurement page 22 Table 7.


    Quote

    For each of the 16 thermography files recorded (ca. two days of test) we have, subsequently: average power consumption of the E-Cat, power emitted by the E-Cat by radiation, power emitted by convection, sum total of the last two values, sum total of watts emitted by both sets of rods by radiation and convection, power dissipated by Joule heating, COP, and net production.


    Furthermore, in the report the following statement is made on Page 14 of the report:


    Quote

    For each of the six 50 cm lengths of copper cable, the relevant resistance is 7.028·10 – 4Ohm From (10) we see that the heat dissipated inside the rods by the copper cables is = 6· (7.028 · 10 – 4 · (9.85)²) = 0.4 W, that is to say, about 6% of the heat emitted by all the copper cables together. It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods.


    We unfortunately don't have, as Michael McKubre suggested, any data from calibration steps of the dummy, but the data used by you is not about heat resulting from current resistance, hence my question of understanding is: is it possible to handle the data you have in your table alone by calculations with the radiation of heat towards the rods coming from the heating element inside the reactor, or are other factors more important, such as the isolation of the reactor core in the region of the heater?


    Since I in this area thoroughly understand your criticism of the report, I would be glad if you could go there a little more in details. Thanks a lot.

  • The calculations are confusing in the report, and i may have got it wrong, but here is my understanding.
    The power flux dissipated overall is measured as:
    Qo = radiation from rods + convection from rods + radiation from reactor + convection from reactor


    The measured input power power to in the system is equal to:
    Qi = joule heating from wires (Qjw) + joule heating in heater (Qjh)


    the authors then take
    Qx = Qo - Qi + Qjw


    as the supposed LENR reactor power.


    Now, practically the wire joule heating Qjw is not significant, it is much smaller than the other components. But it provides a cross-check of Qi. That is because they calculate Qjw independently of anything else from the wire current - measured independently of the input power by clamp ammeters - and an estimate of the wire resistance based on wire composition and dimensions. So whatever is their wire resistance estimate (it need not be correct) the stated Qjw for each of the three tests, calculated from what they call average current but must be average RMS current, must have a ratio the same as the ratio of Qi for these same tests. Unfortunately this ratio is 3.3X different from the stated measured ratio using the power analyser:
    Qjh(active) / Qjh(dummy) = 5.7
    Qi(active) / Qi(dummy) = 1.86


    The difference, 3.1X is the anomaly. (I've calculated ratios a different way round from above, averaging the two active test powers - but the result is the same).


    Sorry for repeating what is maybe obvious but I need to make sure that you understand my assumptions here.


    Then, from the report, the power figure of 6.7W is clearly Joule heating, calculated from the stated measured currents in the dummy run.


    I get my Joule heating powers for the active tests from Table 7 p22 which is described as:

    Quote


    Tables 6 and 7 report all the E-Cat test results relevant to the days of testing, approximately two days for each file.
    The first table shows the average temperature of each cap and of the entire body of the E-Cat for each of the 16 files analyzed. It should be mentioned that, as in the case of the dummy reactor, analysis on the E-Cat was again performed by dividing the thermal images into 10 areas along the length of the reactor, and into three areas for each cap. In the table, however, the results relevant to each area are further averaged out, in order to facilitate reading.
    In the second table, mean power consumption, watts produced and watts dissipated by Joule heating are shown for each file. Uncertainty associated to the result is on average 5% for power consumption and 3% for watts emitted. The last two columns record COP and net production. COP is the ratio of the sum of the mean power, emitted by radiation and convection by both the E-Cat and the rods, to mean power consumption of the reactor minus watts dissipated by the cables through Joule heating.


    Therefore I think the "Joule Heating" column of Table 7 is the resistive heating of the cables and therefore must match (as a near constant ratio between joule heating in cables, and total power in) the power in as calculated by the PCE 3 phase analysers.


    I take this column as a proxy for the measured current values used to calculate it. That, at least, is what the authors say they do and it makes sense.


    What does not make sense is the stated measured input power which is highly inconsistent between the dummy and active tests. I further think it must be wrong for the active test because the dummy test is validated by the output power measurement which matches.


    I realise that I'm not commenting on the thermal aspects of this - because the inconsistency I'm highlighting does not depend on that. It depends only on the stated power measurements. Those are, I believe, the powers calculated from wire currents as the report states.


    I agree that the temperature of the wires will be affected also by heat conducted from the reactor, and therefore the total rod dissipated power (given in the Rods column of Table 6) will be much higher than the Joule heating power. It is around 300W in the active tests.

  • Thanks for your explanation, but have you consider this statement of the report in your calculation?


    Quote

    For each of the six 50 cm lengths of copper cable, the relevant resistance is 7.028·10 – 4Ohm From (10) we see that the heat dissipated inside the rods by the copper cables is = 6· (7.028 · 10 – 4 · (9.85)²) = 0.4 W, that is to say, about 6% of the heat emitted by all the copper cables together. It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods.


    That means the heat emitted by all the copper cables together is only about 6% of the value you have in the row - Joule heating power in leads/W :


    Quote

    Now, practically the wire joule heating Qjw is not significant, it is much smaller than the other components. But it provides a cross-check of Qi.


    then your check would no longer be valid, because we have a new variable:


    joule heating from copper wires (Qjw) (6% of 6.7W = 0.4W)
    joule heating of rods by the heater (Qrh) (94% of 6.7W = 6,298W)


    and if we calculate with these variables and use the 0,4W of the copper wires, then the data table changes from your version


    Test

    Joule heating power in leads/W

    Total supplied power/W

    ratio

    dummy

    6.7

    486

    75.54

    active

    36.8

    796.7

    21.65

    active

    41.7

    912.4

    21.88


    to this one:


    Test

    joule heating from copper wires/W

    Total supplied power/W

    ratio

    dummy

    0.4

    486

    1215

    active

    0.4

    796.7

    1991.75

    active

    0.4

    912.4

    2281

    .

  • Forgive me but you are using Joule heating in a different way from me. Joule heating is heat generated internally (in the wires) from electrical current. Not heat conducted from elsewhere.


    The Joule heating of the heater is indeed significant, and conducts significantly to the rods, but it is not what is measured here. The figures here are only for that portion of rod heat that comes from the rod current. To get the total heat you must add in the conducted heat, I agree.


    The point is that the inconsistency here has nothing to do with the measured total heat. It has only to do with the calculated Joule heating from the wires. This, the report says, is derived from clamp ammeter current measurements.


    Now, to deal with the section you highlight that appears to indicate wire Joule heating of 0.6W. That is calculated assuming a current of 9.85A. That is smaller than the current stated in the dummy calibration calculations (my figure dummy) and certainly smaller than that stated for thg active runs in Table 7. The paragraph is imprecise under what conditions such current might exist, and states it is an example calculation only, whereas the sections I extract numbers from state exactly what are the conditions that lead to the given power.


    Now, to reply to your suggested 0.4W heating for all three rows of the table. That is impossible. It is certain that with a change in input power so the wire Joule heating must change.

  • Forgive me but you are using Joule heating in a different way from me. Joule heating is heat generated internally (in the wires) from electrical current. Not heat conducted from elsewhere.


    Forgive me, but that's exactly what you(!) are doing, the 'W tot.dummy= 5.1 + 1.6 = 6.7W' of emitted heat in your table, that you are using for your cross check is a combination of two values (Page 14 of the report):


    1. Joule heating heat generated internally (in the copper wires) from electrical current = 0,4W
    2. Heat conducted from elsewhere.(here it is 'heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods')= 6,298W


    Quote

    It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods. Page 14


    So all three values in your table row - Joule heating power in leads/W (6.7W, 36.8W, 41.7W) - are not the heat generated exclusively by the current of the copper wires, on the contrary, that amount of heat by the electrical resistance of the copper wire is only a least part because 'that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor'.


    Someone can calculate how the emitted heat of the copper wire will increase when you instead of 486W sent 796.7W, or 912.4W through the wire, but copper is a such a good conductor (and this is exactly the reason why its used in electrical engineering), that the emitted heat of the copper wires (0,4W at 486W supplied) will only increase marginally and certainly not from 6.7W to 36.8W or 41.7W.

  • So let us have a look at page 14 of the report. Section 4.3 sets out to calculate Joule heating in the wires from the measured current in the wires and their calculated resistivity The calculation is:
    P = I2R
    R is calculated to be 4.374E-3 for each C1 wire, 2.811E-3 for each C2 wire. I has two values, 19.7A for C1 wires, and 9.85A for C2 wires. Thus the C1 cables (3 off) represent the first circuit mentioned in the text, the C2 cables (6 off) represent the 2nd circuit. The Joule heating powers for the two cases are 5.1W for the C1 wires, and 1.6W for the C2 wires, giving a total of 6.7W. Note these two components represent Joule heating of different wires, and must be added together for total Joule heating as is done in the text Equation 11.


    From the I2R calculations at the top of p14 (Equations 9 and 10) you can see that both components of this are Joule heating. You can also see from Figure 4 what are C1 and C2, why the current in C1 wires is always double C2, and why this Joule heating is all wire heating and thus the power directly proportions to the square of the heater current, and not affected by the conducted heat from the heater to the wires.


    Quote

    The cables supplying power to the reactor are made of copper and are several meters long. In the present run of the E-Cat the current flow may actually be higher than 40 A. For this reason, it is expedient to evaluate what portion of the current, fed to the system by the power mains, is dissipated by the cables as Joule heat. Figure 4 shows the cable layout from mains to load: three copper cables (C1) exit the power regulator, one for each phase, three meters in length each, with a cross-profile of 12.00 mm 2 . In order to allow the delta configuration connection of the resistors, each of these cables is connected to another two cables (C2), 2 m in length each, having a cross-section of 12.45 mm 2


    I've added C1,C2 in brackets to the introductory text for clarity.


    Finally, note the 3rd paragraph of section 4.3;

    Quote


    We may calculate the dissipated heat to the limited extent of the dummy reactor: the results relevant to the E-Cat will be given in Table 7, due to the fact that the average current values changed from day to day.


    you can see that the equivalent Joule heating figures for the active runs are given in Table 7 and are indeed what I take and use for comparison.

  • In your first post of this thread you have written:


    Quote


    The measurements I'm going to look at are those for Joule heating in the wires feeding the reactor, and those for total power delivered to the reactor from the control unit. Both sets of measurements are made by the same instrument - a 3 phase power analyser. The Joule heating is calculated from the feed wire (mostly copper) resistivity and the measured RMS current in the wires. The total input power is derived from the power meter.[..]


    The report contains the following measurements for the three cases of dummy test, 1250C test, and 1400C test.
    [your table follows]


    ... but what you call 'measurements' in the headline of your table are not measured values of joule heat caused by the electrical resistance of the copper wire (see Page 19):


    Quote

    In the previous paragraph, we have seen that the copper cables running through the rods emit a total of 0.4 W through Joule heating. This value should be subtracted from (24) because, contrary to the power calculated with that equation, it does not derive from heat generated by the reactor and transmitted to the rods by conduction, but from electric power supplied by the mains. However, as it is a very small value, it may be considered part of the error associated to (24). https://de.scribd.com/doc/2422…topic-changes-in-the-fuel


    ... so we have calculated values in your table, and for these values the report additional pointed out (see page 14):


    Quote

    It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods.


    Therefore, I doubt that these values are suitable for a cross-check, because for this are in my view exact measured values necessary.


    And please don't misunderstand me, I am also very interested to disclose all discrepancies of the report, but I don't think that the evidence of this cross-check is so high (because it is not based on measured values and we don't have enough details concerning the measurement method), that all the conclusions of the report concerning the COP can be refuted.


  • The above quote, from the end of section 4.3, shows that the 0.4W figure is the small part of the Joule wire heating inside the alumina rods. This is not relevant when comparing the much larger total wire Joule heating. The p19 paragraph is actually incorrect, it refers back to the previous paragraph, which does not contain the 0.4W value. Further, the active test value for this small part of the Joule heating will actually be larger than 0.4W, but it is also negligible so the error has no significance.


    The values of 6.7W and 37W, 42W are measured, The first from the dummy setup clamp current readings, the second from clamp current reading data collected over the test period and combined to give an average power, just as the other powers are so combined, in table 7.

  • ok I got it, thanks a lot...


    W tot.dummy = (C1)5.1W + (C2)1.6W = 6.7W is the calculated value for:


    Quote

    three copper cables exit the power regulator, one for each phase, three meters in length each, with a cross-profile of 12.00 mm². In order to allow the delta configuration connection of the resistors, each of these cables is connected to another two cables, 2 m in length each, having a cross-section of 12.45 mm² (Report Bottum of Page 13)


    ... so we have (C1-12.00 mm²)3·3m + (C2-12.45 mm²)6·2m = 21m of cupper wire in total and only 6·50cm = 3m of the (C2)wire are effected by this calculation 6·(7.028 · 10 – 4 · (9.85)²) = 0.4 W which represents the total amount of emitted Joule heating by the 3m copper cables that are running through the rods.


    ... but is the calculated value - W tot.dummy = (C1)5.1W + (C2)1.6W = 6.7W - emmited Joule heating of the copper wire really the same value as in the row - Joule heating (W) - in table 7 ?



    ... and what is about table 4.


  • Yes, I think the table 7 figures are correct.


    (1) they match exactly (within 1%) the ratio of power dissipated as expected for the two active tests
    (2) they say that is what they are, and they are of the right order size


    Table 4 is a set of figures for the heat measured emitted by the dummy reactor from radiation and convection - note "rods". This is nothing to do with the wire Joule heating (the wires to go through the rods to make that 0.4W but that is a small (6%) correction to the total Joule heating.


    there is a question of whether the figures are including or excluding the rod Joule heating. The 6.7W figure is including it. I'm not sure whether the active reactor figures are including or excluding - but I believe also including. Either way, it makes not much difference (6%) to the X3.3.

  • Unfortunately are the comparable data of the dummy test scattered on different page of the report (Table 3 Page 17, (24) Page 19, first paragraph Page 20, (26)(27) Page 21).


    But I have found them and added the data of the dummy test in table 7, to make the problem a bit more visible. And for me it is very astounding! On the one hand side they make a huge calculation for (more ore less unimportant) 0.4 W of emitted heat and on the other side they should not be able to notice the (obvious) 'lost' of approximately 30 W? I can hardly believe this!


    I will again look at the all data of the report in more detail, perhaps we overlook something. But anyway, this is definitely a very good question to the testers!



    (image changed - reason - joule heating (W) - corrected from rounded 7,00W to the correct 6,7W - for old image click here)

  • To be precise:


    The 37W lost from the heater power is a small error compared with 800W heater.


    The fact that they measure 37W (5.5X higher than what they measure for the dummy run) matters because the Joule heating in the heater must be proportional to the Joule heating in the wire - they have the same current and both are resistors made of metal - whose resistivity does not vary much with temperature.


    so if 6.7 W => 486W heater we should have


    37W => 2680W heater power.


    That gives a COP of < 1 for this electric heater - a pretty clever feat!


    This is a dramatically different value from their measured power in of (for the 1250C test) 800W.


    It means the COP is now slightly less than 1 (there are however various errors, like the variation in heater resistance with temperature).

  • A possible partial explanation could be in the E-Cat control system that itself consumes 360W, at nominal power (see p3), and this value is confirmed by the measurements of both PCE 830 (p5):


    Quote

    Readings were consistent, showing the same current waveform; furthermore, they
    enabled us to measure the power consumption of the control system, which, at full capacity, was seen to be
    the same as the nominal value declared by the manufacturer.


    Thus, our problem could be reduced to
    486-360=126W -> 6.7W Joule heating
    815-360=455W -> 25W Joule heating, a good step towards the 36W Joule heating claimed.

  • That is an ingenious idea. However the testers measured power both before and after the control box. The tables comparing input and output power are precise, so it would be strange indeed if this significant error were left out.


    In the case of the dummy reactor the measured output power was close to input. So this would imply that the dummy reactor had a COP of around 3 - surely not tenable?

  • A possible partial explanation could be in the E-Cat control system that itself consumes 360W, at nominal power (see p3), and this value is confirmed by the measurements of both PCE 830 (p5):


    @ goax Good point, and in addition:


    Quote

    The E-Cat's control apparatus consists of a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmablemicrocontroller; its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W. The regulator is driven by a potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e. the current through the resistor coils, normally 40-50Amps), and by the temperature read by the reactor's thermocouple. (page 3)


    It would be expected to have different value on PCE 830 A and PCE 830 B, whether the system controller is operating or not. But as Thomas pointed out, why is this 'error' (or may be better to call it circumstance) not reported, or discussed?


    Let see what the testers will tell us.



  • And what is about those "40-50Amps"?


    In the chapter "4.3 Joule heating in the cables" (Page 13) they especially tested the current fed to the system by the power mains because "the current flow may actually be higher than 40 A".


    Quote

    The cables supplying power to the reactor are made of copper and are several meters long. In the present run of the E-Cat the current flow may actually be higher than 40 A. For this reason, it is expedient to evaluate what portion of the current, fed to the system by the power mains, is dissipated by the cables as Joule heat.



    We have (C1-12.00 mm²)3·3m + (C2-12.45 mm²)6·2m = 21m of cupper wire, we dont know were PCE 830 B is placed in Curcuit C1, but could it be that C1 has a current of 40-50A and C2 of 20-25A, when the control system is switch on or regulated via the potentiometer?


    Then this calcualtion on Page 14 would be different for the running E-Cat
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Control System OFF - Dummy - Current from power mains C1 19.7A - C2 9.85A
    Heat dissipated by the first circuit is:
    W C1 = 3(R 1I1²) = 3(4.375·10 – 3 ·(19.7)²) = 5.1 [W]
    Heat dissipated by the second circuit is:
    W C2 = 6(R 2I2²) = 6(2.811·10 – 3 ·(9.85)²) = 1.6 [W]
    Total Joule heating = 6.7W
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Variant 1 - 40A
    Control System ON - E-Cat - Current from Control System C1 40.0A - C2 20.0A
    Heat dissipated by the first circuit is:
    W C1 = 3(R 1I1²) = 3(4.375·10 – 3 ·(40.0)²) = 21 [W]
    Heat dissipated by the second circuit is:
    W C2 = 6(R 2I2²) = 6(2.811·10 – 3 ·(20.0)²) = 6,75 [W]
    Total Joule heating = 27,75W


    Variant 2 - 50A
    Control System ON - E-Cat - Current from Control System C1 50.0A - C2 25.0A
    Heat dissipated by the first circuit is:
    W C1 = 3(R 1I1²) = 3(4.375·10 – 3 ·(50.0)²) = 32,8 [W]
    Heat dissipated by the second circuit is:
    W C2 = 6(R 2I2²) = 6(2.811·10 – 3 ·(25.0)²) = 10,5 [W]
    Total Joule heating = 43,3W
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • In fact they were wrong about C1 C2 currents. For any normal 3 phase RMS waveform the ratio is sqrt(3) between RMS line current (C1) and RMS phase current (C2). I should have spotted this earlier - but I want not paying attention to the load configuration.


    For a Triac-switched waveform the same partly applies because the triacs switch the line outputs to the instantaneous value of the 3 phase input waveforms - if on 100% duty cycle it is the same as sqrt(3). But if the duty cycle is short the system approximates one in which C1 RMS is double C2 RMS.


    This does not really matter. For the dummy reactor case we know the duty cycle is short so the statement made in the report is good enough though not technically correct.


    Tom

  • I'd like to summarise the power in issue.


    Either Rossi has an extraordinary and useless NTC heating element (because it is not NTC at the active temperatures, only at lower than expected power out) or the current and power measurements don't match by a factor of 3.3.


    (1) This can be checked by the testers with their stored data from the PCE-830, sampled every 0.5s, because we know the current and power data was extracted for the report. During the heatup phase (which was gradual) we will see clearly how heater resistance changes with temperature. Or not.


    (2) If in fact the heaters are Inconel wire then there is an error between the power and current measurements between dummy and active tests. this would have the effect of over-estimating COP by X3.3 and can only be resolved by the testers working out what caused this error.