Posts by Paradigmnoia

    SSC said:

    "How many nonsense .............. Professors have written and signed the Lugano report, that is enough to make it clear that they support the work they have done. There is no need to reiterate their point of view on the internet: if they did not deny what they wrote,it means that they are convinced of the value of their work. The fact that they believe in the E-Cat is confirmed by the replication they are making in Sweden: if it were not so, now they would deal with other things. It is useless that you try to interpret the attitude of the Professors so that this can be part of your vision, where Rossi is an orc and anyone who has to deal with him is a victim. Things are not so, resign yourself to that."

    Bah, I can make a Lugano-Style IR COP of 3.2 with 5 mm alumina tube with one orange-hot Kanthal wire running lengthwise through the centre of it.

    So can anyone.

    Clearly I should have sent one to Sweden a long time ago.

    Elon Musk should solve that for you cerca 2020 with his massive number of low earth orbit global internet satellite launches about to commence.

    We will have satellite Internet.... At $7 / Mb . So chittychatting won't be allowed.

    More competition would be nice. Out normal satellite provider sold all their available bandwidth to some big company working in the region, so we are stuck with plan B for now.


    WONDERING: why none of the most vociferous posters haven't made a bet ... Dewey, Mary Y, Rothwell, even TH Huxley, IH Fanboy ...

    OK, I bet 38 L/h max, unless water is forced through the pump inlet by external pressure.

    I'll be airport hopping for the next couple of days, on my way to the Arctic again.

    Thanks, Alan, for doing the experiment. Hopefully I can see results before arriving at my destination.

    I won't have internet for up to 2 months, so if I don't post for a long time, don't be surprised.



    Certainly the ridges do improve cooling some, but not as dramatically as one might tend to think. The main cooling improvement would be to convection cooling, but convection cooling is a small part of the heat budget once the object begins to visibly glow.

    As for radiation cooling, the 45 degree ridges have a large component of captured and re-emitted heat from the adjacent ridges (View factor effects). This slightly increases emissivity.

    Viewed normal to the length of the main tube, as the IR camera should be, the ridge profiles are not visible. The hotter valleys and cooler tips temperatures are averaged within the Optris measurement boxes, and they are not directly visible in the images provided, even though there may be as much as 75 C differences between the immediately adjacent peaks and valleys.

    Testing using the Lugano results lead me to using 2.3 cm diameter for the Main Tube, instead of 2.0 cm, as a quick fudge to dealing with the ridges that was consistent with posted Lugano figures when using their methods.

    I have tested many scenarios where temperatures K might have slipped in instead of degrees C, and vice-versa, and none of them seem at all likely.

    You are discovering the obvious. The inside of the pipe is obviously hotter..... so what ?

    Clearly I "discovered" this a couple of years ago.

    How hot would the heater coils in the Lugano device be, if the outside surface was 1410 C?

    And, how hot is the Lugano thermocouple in it's fairly central Cap position?

    In my plot, the inner thermocouple was only 2 mm below the outer coils, on the other side of the alumina.

    If the outside of the Main Tube was around 1410 C, then the below the ridges, under the ceramic potting compound, (where the wound heating coil is), the temperature is higher.

    The caps have more insulation, and even with a cooler outside temperature, will have a very high core temperature. Remember, three sets of glowing hot wires pass around the inner fuel tube filler area (and extend past it), beneath 1.5 cm of cast alumina.

    For a fun test, heat a Kanthal A1 wire 1400 C (at an un-insulated section), while 4 cm of it are encased in 1.5 cm of hardened alumina paste. Then try encasing 4 cm of it in 3 mm of alumina paste (use a new wire for this).

    Note that surface convective improvements have minor effects on surface temperature compared to the radiative power dissipation unless the overal surface area is increased by multiples rather than fractional increases. The fins on the Lugano device contribute little to the overall cooling.

    Sure, but the outside of the caps were in the 500 C range. The internal temp of the end caps will be somewhat hotter, but probably still well within the range of the thermocoupler used. Come to think of it, I think Rossi explained all of this on his blog long ago, which would be consistent with the patent application. (Although I can't seem to find the discussion on the blog at the moment.)

    ...600 C range, and double the diameter (insulation thickness) of the Main Tube, but with the fuel just mms away from the wire.

    Which also leads us to the Kanthal A1 calibrated resistance wire temperature problem.

    That was the outside of the caps. Of course the internal temperature was much higher.

    I said the QuarkX, not the Lugano device. We don't know how the thermocouple was embedded, insulated, positioned, or with what it was in contact with, within the Lugano device. You're speculating. The innards of the Lugano device were never revealed.

    And I was talking about the Lugano device.

    The innards are exposed in the Patent application, from which I made a scale drawing in CAD years ago. Since the original images were from photos, the entire ensemble can be re-assembled, once digitized, and they all fit together like a glove without re-scaling any individual part.

    That's the thing Para. The assertions you guys make are always based on faulty assumptions. Like, for example, that Rossi would insert the thermocouple into the center of the reacting fuel. This would make another great bet on the Augur prediction market: Did Rossi insert the thermocouple into the center of the plasma reaction of the QuarkX. Would you take that bet with me?

    The thermocouple was stuck into the fuel hole, in the center of a device which supposedly had a 1410 C surface (where convection and radiation is cooling the device). That is already hotter than a thin wire type K TC can take. Now how hot was the inside of that device, especially near where fuel was poured in, if the outside was 1410 C ?

    Funny thing is, since there is no convection possible inside the potting and alumina tube construction of device, a purely radiating cylinder of the diameter of the inside area in question is a good approximation of the internal temperature.

    As far as you know ......

    From the Lugano paper:

    "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.

    "The E-Cat's control device is a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmable microcontroller, its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W. The regulator is driven by a potentiometer The resistance coefficient, normally 40-50 amps), and by the temperature read by the reactor's thermocouple. "

    A thermocouple with a lower melting point than the internal temperature of the device, no less.

    Another Rossi miracle.

    Twenty two pages of rehashing by the do nothing critics, with one actually saying they don't want to do that. Alan Smith , who does things, understands things better and takes a much more measured approach. How soon they forget their forecasts about the trial.

    DT wrote: "I tested the Prominent pump of the photo in the report of Smith and discovered that you are right: if you pump water through a pipe 20 meters high it has a flow rate of about 32.5 liters per hour, but when I cut the column to 1 meter it pumped 68 liters per hour !"

    Of course only IJ is to be believed.

    The nay sayers are unable to grasp Rossi's philosophy. Only sales of working commercial units will convince them, no experiment ever will. Rossi does enough to convince investors. like those needed for mass manufacturing, but owes the critics nothing.

    DT signed off as A.R. at least once already, so I don't trust his experimental results.

    Presumably at 0.2 bar, then, it would be operated outside of its range of operation? (Not that it matters or makes a difference.)

    From what I understand of the pump, the backpressure is required at some level to seat the seals properly. Otherwise water might just flow through the pump unmetered, defeating the purpose of the pump. (Based on the label specifications, the pumps were pumping hotter fluid than the seals are rated for, also).

    Kudos to IHF and AF for taking the experiment on.

    You guys could just look at the flow rate at maximum stroke, and multiply by the correction factor of about 1.2 where the factory rated back pressure extrapolates to, according to the factory manual and instructions. But it is a little funny that the pump is only rated to 0.5 bar minimum backpressure.

    @IH Fanboy ,

    Maybe buying a pump is the way to go.

    But consider in the meantime how exactly a pump with a fixed displacement and a specific number (computer controlled) of maximum strokes per minute is to deliver more of an almost incompressible fluid than a small fraction more than the nominal maximum and mathematically calculable pump displacement-X-strokes-X-time volume of fluid.

    To move substantially more, either the displacement must greatly increase and/or the number of stokes must increase.

    If you for these very low ohmic heater wires calculate the needed wire diameters from the resistivity for heater wires which can handle these temperatures (For example Kantal) and even for copper (low ohmic), then you will see that the number of turns will not fit on the area because the needed wire diameter becomes too large
    One possible solution to this problem would be that the "average current" mentioned in the report is not the average RMS current but the average of the peak currents. This has the following consequences :

    1. Since the peak current is for small pulses, the RMS current is much lower.

    2. As a consequence the calculated Joule heating power in the Lugano report is too high (About a factor 10)

    But if the "average current" is indeed the the average peak current, then for the dummy run it results in resistance of each of the three heater wires of about 25 Ohm. For Kantal A1 type wire the diameter will then be small enough to properly fit on the tube and to have enough spacing between the windings.

    I was able to work out the Lugano windings exactly matching the specifications. I even wound one up (in both 14 and 16 Ga: 15 Ga is hard to find).

    I posted a link with the calculation boxes filled in a long time ago, using (used normally for vape winding calcs, but works perfectly for larger heaters).

    The twisted windings are important.

    If the Lugano device has about 1/3 of the heater wire resistance within the caps (Possibly meaning that the windings continue within the caps) and the MFP device not (Having a straight heater wire within the caps) it would mean that the MFMP device was not a good replication of the Lugano device.

    It also explains why the temperatures near the caps decreases much faster and to lower temperatures then the Lugano device. I was already wondering about that,

    And it also would indeed mean that the Lugano device needed more power to get to the same temperatures near the center of the device then that of the MFMP replica.

    Would be nice if somebody has a finite element thermal simulation program and would model both situations, run some tests and compare the results with the contents of the reports.

    For the purposes of checking IR temperature measurements and emissivity issues, the MFMP replica was quite good.

    When the MFMP went to the point of comparing total power in to specific temperature levels, their replica falls short and the comparison is unfair. The Lugano device is very difficult to replicate exactly, even ignoring the fuel-LENR part. It is a pain to power up, requiring a very robust and costly power management system and industrial three phase power supply. The Lugano twisted calibrated resistance heater wires are very large diameter for heater application and have very low effective resistance (and therefore are capable of huge current flows). The heating circuit could be approximated more closely using single phase and higher resistance wire, but a good understanding of the Lugano device heat distribution is required.

    Comparing radiant power in specific areas of the MFMP device to the Lugano device would open a large "can of worms", and I can see why the MFMP would want to avoid doing that.

    Is your conclusion that the MFMP compared the power of a part of the ECAT (190.6 W) to the value of the total power in the Lugano report (479 W) ?

    It would explain the large error of 251 %

    I will have to go over that report more thoroughly when I have some more time. As I understand it, they compared the respective measurement areas 5 to 9 to get a temperature, and compared the power input to achieve that temperature in those areas in each respective device, but the radiant and convective power output was not considered from either device. This is why I looked at the possible temperature the Lugano device could have been, if it had a typical IR camera spectral emissivity of 0.95 instead of what was used for the report (0.69 to 71 for the main body, etc).

    If the Lugano power input was indeed 479 W, the radiant+convective power at an adjusted emissivity at 0.95 only makes 264.5 W at the new, lower temperature, plus the contribution from the Rods. That doesn't match up very well.

    So then if the Lugano device was ~442 C, and not ~365 C, (raising the temperature and therefore radiant plus convective power to regain the 100 C lost due to calculated emissivity changes) then it might actually have used around 400+ W. If it was indeed 365 C, it still would have required at least 265 W in, and closer to 365 W if the rods are considered, which is still much more than the MFMP suggested, even ignoring the rods (the MFMP device used no Rods, and did not have 3 hot resistor leads extending through each Cap and into the rods).

    So the MFMP thermal comparison seems to have some sort of flaw. Their device concentrates the heat in the main tube, but barely heats the Caps, due to the heater coil design. The Lugano device has fully 1/3 of the entire resistance-heater wire length within the Caps and extending into the Rods at least 4 cm. So it takes more power in total to heat the Lugano Main tube in comparison to the MFMP device.