Posts by Paradigmnoia

    Hopefully not sold to the public like the small module (still installed in the container) supposedly sold for climatizing the Doral warehouse, as witnessed by a USQL affidavit for the USPTO, even though the small modules only ran for a couple of days at best, and were reported not to work due to leaks and other excuses (IH built them wrong, etc.)... and IH technically had already purchased the module as part of the reactor years earlier... And yet Doral was the point of sale...

    I will add here, once again, it was my attempt to find an alternate method (spectral radiant power matching at different temperature-emissivities) to test Clarke's position, and at the same time attempt to show Clarke wrong (and therefore that the Lugano reactor was working) that I discovered for myself that Clarke was right, or so close to being right that he was right enough, and Lugano therefore did not work.

    Thanks. If I understand this properly, it is the calculated combined in band emissivity of the bolometer and alumina.

    This I have a minor disagreement with, and my opinion is corroborated by experiments using the Optris software:

    The bolometer response is modified by the internal camera software, so that the sub-black body bolometer emissivity curve reports as a blackbody when viewing a true blackbody. This is the primary camera calibration. So the two curves, in my opinion, should not be combined. There will be a camera-specific adjustment that levels the raw (micro) bolometer response. Since there cannot be an emissivity > 1, and a blackbody will have a straight line at 1 across the wavelengths, the adjustment to the integrated in band bolometer response can be estimated.

    I skipped this step, and instead assumed that camera bolometer reported a blackbody when it saw one (or else the camera would not work very well, even if the object emissivity was not a perfect greybody), and using radiant power matching, mathematically very closely (within 5 C) matched the results achieved with IR camera footage on real hot objects with good calibration (thermocouples, calibrated emissivity paint, and dual frequency pyrometers). In general, if I recall correctly, I ended up about 20 C less than Clarke. Still respectably close enough that both methods were ending up essentially in the same place, although my method ended up closer to the Optris software results (which were not exactly the same as the Lugano reactor, obviously).

    If the Kanthal wire looks like new, then it does not have the protective Al oxide layer on it.

    Perhaps this suggests that whatever was happening was primarily involved with oxides, or there was no oxygen available to allow the Kanthal wire to develop it's coating. (Al in the Kanthal is there to support the development of the protective oxide layer, to a large degree).

    As I recall, Levi et al. brought their own instruments from the university.

    Regarding "independent tester" -- I do not know if Levi qualifies as an "independent tester." I gather he is Rossi's friend, but I do not to what extent.

    Perhaps it is the other way around, then, where Rossi purchased the same instruments as used in the test. It that case there is no coincidence, and not really much more to say about it.

    I seem to recall an Optris in his Bologna space, when Aftenposten did their film. Perhaps late 2011 or early 2012. (Where the flat square reactor held together with with clamps was on a metal stand). I could be mixing that up with the validation test though. I'll look.

    EDIT: The July 16, 2012 test by Penon seems to be where the Optris shows up first, as far as I can tell.

    JedRothwell ,

    I don't have any problem with instruments used by Rossi and the testers per se. However, I would be much happier if the independent testers brought equivalent instruments of a different make from Rossi's equipment, so that if there are settings or "strange tricks" or whatever that could be used with equipment Rossi was familiar with, these could not be easily done with different equipment. It just help keep any ideas of faking things with equipment tricks out of the picture. Any tricks, if there were any, would have to ones universal to measurements by that style, rather than specific type/brand, of measurement equipment.

    Further, when the Lugano COP ~1 theory is tested in multiple ways, the results always seem to trend towards a set of conditions free of contradictions.

    Conversely, contradictions appear most frequently when the high COP, found in the report, is supposed to be true.

    So, if we look up external data, we find that the typical integrated spectral emissivity of alumina (the report claims that the reactor is >99.9% alumina, even though this is inconsistent with claims that IH cast it from Durapot 810) in the IR camera spectral sensitivity range is around 0.95

    Plugging that emissivity in, and re-calculating the temperature, and then re-calculating heat power, we discover that the COP is suddenly very close to 1. That is, that the approximate power produced, within various uncertainties like view factor calculation, convection, actual hemispheric total emissivity, Rods, etc. is almost exactly equal to what is claimed as electrical input power. Considering that there are fourth power factors in these equations, there is only a tiny window where input and temperatures can agree with COP 1. It is not amazing to have this coincidence. It is the normal answer. This lends credence to the idea that the true emissivity of the reactor, as far as the camera is concerned, is close to 0.95

    We should not expect perfect convergence with the expected COP 1, as this is difficult when the best attempts are made to do this. But the result, within the gross uncertainties we are given in the Lugano report, that is very close to the mundane result we would expect from heating a stick of alumina strongly leads us to the conclusion that this is indeed the case. If we were to insert the expected spectral value for alumina (as opposed to ~ 0.45), run the calculations, and the result was quite out of ballpark of COP 1, then we may have reason to supect something that was not usual going on, like an anomalous COP, or incorrect input power measurements. However, the COP ~ 1 result actually helps to corroborate the reported averaged input power values.

    LDM ,

    It is obvious that the spectral and total emissivities were conflated in the report.

    The exact correct value for the camera emissivity setting we can probably never know.

    The exact material of the surface of the reactor body is in question (painted Durapot, how thick, how evenly applied, what exact paint, variance of emissivity of both Duapot 810 and paint batches).

    The rods' emissivity were used to calibrate the camera for the reactor body emissivity, but the rods are of a much denser material (noted in the report), and this 'calibration' at half of the Reactor operating temperature (if active COP were 1), and 1/3 of the temperature if the COP as reported was correct). In fact, the Rods probably never even got over 300 C, less than 1/4 of the reported reactor temperature, even if they were made of the same material (but they were not). In essence no reliable calibration for the camera.

    However, non-conductor ceramics of many compositions do have a reasonably consistent emissivity range in the IR camera's spectral sensitivity range at elevated temperatures. This is between about 0.8 and 0.97, depending on many factors. The rougher and more porous (like poured, hardened, non-pressed alumina slurry castings), the higher the emissivity.

    You’re overthinking this... And apparently saying that Clarke’s papers is worthless. I disagree.

    Is the proportion of energy leaving the system due to convection from the rods that great, that it merits such fine analysis? I assume modelling them as a triangle would be fine?

    I am not saying that. The evidence is leading towards a COP of approximately 1, the normal state of the universe in the human sensitivity range. TC, myself, LDM, and others can do some calculations with data supplied, choosing from which we feel is the most reliable.

    But the upshot is that the data we are choosing from may not be reliable, as there are certainly errors, and we are not really in a position to choose which data is good, and which is not good, without corroborating data. Which we don't have.

    The greatest body of data that can be used for corroboration is the normal result in the typical Earth conditions, where COP would be 1, within uncertainty bounds. The Lugano data, when corroborated with normal Earth expectations (COP =1) has an extremely high level of correspondence and corroboration with alternate calculations using the same data when the COP = 1 theory is applied. Therefore the preponderance of evidence leads me to believe that it did not work, the COP was effectively 1.

    However the data is not good enough that if the COP was indeed 1.2 or maybe even 1.5, that we could discern this through the uncertainties and real errors.

    I am shocked.

    They explain explicitly that the I R camera emissivity setting was derived from the plot they made of total emissivity. The "COP" that was reported is perfectly compatible with this, when power is calculated from the greatly inflated and very erroneous temperature reported by the camera when the emissivity factor is half of what it should be, compounded by the T4 relationship of radiant power to temperature.

    Optris reports that the sensitivity range for the camera that was used is the 7 to 13.5 um band, as is consistent with pretty much all LW IR cameras, due to technical reasons (lenses, bolometer design, and atmospheric absorption of IR in large ranges of the IR spectrums). Optris suggested that this type (LWIR) of IR camera be used, because they are aware that the alumina has the highest emissivity in the LWIR range. Matching the IR camera sensitivity band to the maximum emissivity range of the measured object makes for the most accurate temperature readings, when the correct emissivity is used.

    Zeus46 ,

    We can never get it to COP anything within reasonable errors, since the errors are so rampant and large. We can guess all day at ways to fix it, but at the end of the day, it is almost all guesses. Maybe if the IR camera file, the PCE data file, photos of all the wiring (end to end, active and blank runs), samples of the Rods and Reactor fins, samples of the paint on the reactor, etc. turned up, we could make really good guesses.

    But all that stuff is lost, hidden, or destroyed. Just like one would expect of one of the world's most important LENR tests, no?

    Finer-tuned surface area and view factors may improve power estimates of the Lugano device somewhat, but do nothing for the conflation of spectral and total emissivity for the IR camera setting, by which the temperature of the Lugano reactor was determined. Every independent test done with IR and alumina, and alumina-like ceramic materials, has demonstrated the serious error, amounting to an overestimate of several hundred degrees of the temperatures reported in the Lugano report. Fine tuning of some parameters will not appreciably mitigate the grossly over-reported temperatures.

    Consider a hypothetical process that speeds up radioactive decay a little, e.g., alpha decay. For the sake of argument, suppose a strong magnetic field, not hooked up to a control system, could do this. Radioactive decay is a statistical phenomenon, and (in our hypothetical scenario) you've just turned the dial a little. I don't think this would result in the instabilities. That suggests to me that if the feedback loop is slow enough to respond (e.g., due to thermal inertia), there wouldn't necessarily be instability when the inducing process (a magnetic field in our case) is hooked up to a control system. In a short period of time after the field strength has been increased, the decay rate would go up a little, resulting in more decays per second, and more thermalized heat, and then the ensemble of atoms would re-establish equilibrium. The control system would see the new state of the world in the form of an increase in temperature within a period of time that is a function of the thermal inertia of the system, resulting in a dampened response.

    I agree with you 100 percent that input-plus-a-little-more "COP" plots are suspicious.

    Using the example of increasing the decay rate, the decay rate of a material in a typical reactor size would have to be increased phenomenally, not just a little, to produce sensible heat for any significant time period.

    We have calculated the required number of alphas, gammas, IR photons, etc., numerous times over the years. Even for 10 W for 30 seconds, for example, the numbers are huge.

    Eric Walker ,

    The control systems for experiments typically work at semi-second to maybe microsecond (measurement/calculation) response times, tangled with generally much slower responding thermal mass properties of reactor and thermocouple materials, while nuclear events typically work in picosecond magnitude time periods. So once some sort of tipping point for inducing a nuclear reaction occurs, there can be an enormous delay (from the viewpoint of atoms) before the control systems can possibly react. Nuclear events releasing enough energy to sensibly heat objects in the human scale neccesarily must be very numerous and diffuse, otherwise the heat would be miniscule or too concentrated in one location.

    In some sort of essence, we are looking for the trigger to millions upon millions of low energy nuclear events, triggered casually (if not complicatedly) and yet that such the reactor materials and temperature measurement materials can easily absorb and report the heat so that these millions upon millions of events can be slowed down or un-triggered in a time frame that is relevant to the atomic reaction time scale, the data monitoring and control apparatus time scale, and the heat transfer rate time scale. Without even knowing the reason the millions upon millions of reactions occurs in the first place.

    I would expect for these reasons that temperature excursions should be the norm in a successful event, not an exception. And almost certainly that nice smooth input-plus-a-little-more "COP" plots should be anomalous, if not incredibly suspicious.

    Shane, if an exothermic nuclear reaction that can often and reliably generate 20-100% overunity exists, as claimed here, it is always going to be possible to generate an unambiguous experimental result, especially because nothing about nuclear mechanisms makes the output power directly depend on the input power. So there is no inherent limit on COP

    "especially because nothing about nuclear mechanisms makes the output power directly depend on the input power"

    This is why I am always suspicious of nice plots with the excess heat/power/temperature looking like an inflated lock-step trace of the input. Maybe truth is stranger than fiction, and Nature does whatever she wants anyways, but it seems to me that a triggered nuclear event, in general events that are orders of magnitude more powerful than chemical reactions, should depart from a tidy lock-step relationship with the input heat/power/temperatrature. Certainly the level of control would be remarkable to maintain such complete control of nuclear reactions that no spike in output as the process begins, actually occurs.

    If I can derive what the distances between the tubes where, I can then recalculate the Lugano dummy run and learn what is important for new FEM simulations.

    Maybe then it will then also be possible to calculate if the correction was also applied to the active run

    Just to clarify a bit about this:

    The calculated power of the Rods for the active portion of the demo is displayed in the Lugano report (Table 5, page 20).

    They would have had to have applied the 2/3 factor to each displayed value before inserting them into this table.

    It is not applied later, as shown in the Rods column, Table 7, page 22, where the total power from all segments is calculated.

    I'll see if I can scrounge a link for the Hoistad photo. It is the only high-res photo, and the only photo not found in the report in the public domain, so far as I can tell.

    There does seem to be a small gap. My guess is that the tubes are not perfectly straight, so they don't sit tight together along their entire length. A mm or so gap here and there is probable.

    Regarding the stacked tubes, there may, or maybe not, be an error in the Lugano report regarding the treatment of the two sets of Rods.

    For the dummy, they used the 2/3 method, (imperfect as it is).

    For the active version, there is no indication that the 2/3 adjustment was applied.

    I believe that there is no significant gap between Rods in the bundle of three. They are cemented with blobs of ceramic to hold them together as a bundle. Cementing them with a gap would be unnecessarily complicated for little to no gain, and would be much more fragile, IMO. There should be a good photo of the cables exiting the end of the Rods available, (possibly the high definition photo by Hoistad).

    Edit: Photos

    I see your point. If the fin tips are too cool compared to the base, then that could indicate that the ribs are probably too tall to be maximally efficient.

    On the other hand, if there is no base to tip rib temperature gradient, then heat will not flow into the ribs and convection will not be improved by ribs. (The case of being in a vacuum would be like this). It would merely be a surface area increase radiation improvement.