For the record, I will say the that the reported input power measurements in the Lugano Report are the best, most believable data ever reported on a Rossi device.
If there is an error, is the the most precise, internally consistent error ever made.
(The Dummy could have an input error of about 0.9% on the high side, in order to fit it to the Active Runs a bit better)
If you don't believe the electrical data, (such as it is) then the rest of the calculations are a waste of time.
The electrical data is one of the very few empirically measured things in the entire report (even if it is averaged over hours or days).
It is the fulcrum of all comparisons with other information supplied.
Even the reported dimensions of the Caps are suspect. Do they look "square", (4 cm x 4 cm) to you?.
What's important is that if they where inflated, what then the real input power must have been.
The real input power, in my opinion, is very close to what was reported. It is consistent with the Active runs and the calculations of the resistance of the heater wires at all back-calculated input powers, within a reasonable variance.
Active Run 1 is a little "off" from the rest for some reason, (not sure why) but the rest are mutually consistent and are consistent with the Dummy.
What bugs me is what could have been gone wrong with their measurements.
The rods vs caps distribution of input power of the MFMP device was greatly different from the Lugano device, due mostly to the single heater wire (although that could have been mitigated).
This results in much less input power to the Caps, and the increased % of power into the Main Tube area because a single, straight through heater wire passes through the Caps instead of three as in Lugano. A few wraps in the Caps would have more closely reflected the input heat distribution in the MFMP replica. Roughly 30% of the heater wire in the Lugano device is outside of the Main Tube area, and is contained within the Caps and extensions beyond, attaching to the C2 cables.
In turn, this increases the MFMP Main Tube temperature relative to input power, skewing the simulation.
If the reported temperatures for the Lugano dummy run where inflated, then the difference would have been much larger. As such it is unlikely that the temperatures where inflated
The reported Dummy temperatures were inflated, based on your work. Just not by much.
What is more interesting is the Dummy peak temperature. It is just below the point where emissivity-temperature errors really become apparent. Personally I doubt that is an accident.
The correct Joule heating value for the dummy cables is 7.276 W, rather than the value supplied in the report, which failed to take into account the delta configuration (despite Rossi's tantrum claiming otherwise on JoNP).
The C2 cables are inside the delta, while the C1 ones are not. The C2 cables end up Joule heating at 2.182 W, rather than 1.6W, while the C1 cables produce 5.094 W when the corrections have been made.
It is a minor difference for the Dummy, but important for calculations for the Active Runs.
This simulation also shows that the MFMP thermal state report is deeply flawed in its conclusions about the dummy.
Just from the shape of the boiler? Huh.
It is probably a heating surface area vs area exposed to the atmosphere thing, along with surface tension (related to the atmosphere “window” size). I read something about a long time ago.
I’ll see if I can find a reference. I probably have a water boiling point folder someplace, on a drive. Apparently the experiments with “superheating” water can be quite dangerous. Spontaneous giant vapour bubbles (can throw all the other hot water out of, or break the container) and instant vaporization of all the water at once are potential hazards.
I think around 3 to 4 degrees difference is easily obtained. Modified by the purity of the water, gas content of the water, and the surface conditions/material of the container, the boiling temperature, at standard atmospheric pressure, can be quite variable. However, 10 degrees higher than normal is possible in some fairly simple configurations, as well as maybe 7 or 8 degrees lower than normal with bubble nucleation improvements (chips, rough surfaces (ceramic is good), gas impurities, and micro contaminants in suspension). That is with plain water. The boiling point of water is a surprisingly complex phenomena. The record for the highest boiling point of “pure” water at standard pressure is around 200 C, in specific conditions.
I am not aware if there are any extensively reported boiling point experiments done with prepared electrolytes. I suppose to some extent, electrolysis type CF experiments would indirectly be a large part of that body of work.
Just some food for thought for the weekend...
Just for the sake of discussion, although it may not be relevant, I will mention that the boiling point of water is actually sensitive to the shape of the container. It is not widely known, but boiler makers have known this for centuries.
There will be a delay in the release of LENR based turbine power product from Rossi's partner.
Will the Rossi Magic 8-ball be double your money back guaranteed?
Of course there will be a delay. Delayed forever.
The Rossi Magic 8-ball is not an investment vehicle.
I am considering pre-orders for a Rossi Magic 8-ball answer prediction toy.
I expect sales from at least dozens of Rossi followers.
Too early to say
Working on it
Must protect IP
That version is obsolete
Maybe next year
and where is the simultaneous measurement of the input current and voltage across the device? If the input is not measured then the COP statements are just xxxxxxx.
And why does the control system cooling fan (not shown either) use more power than the QX device is reported to make?
Right there, that is a COP of less than one.
Do you mean that with everything else unchanged, a tube would run hotter with the fins (with a 2 cm valley bottom diameter), than a plain bare tube with a 2 cm diameter, notwithstanding the apparent extra surface area caused by the fins using the fin design used for the Lugano device?
Acknowledged. old Rossi tech was flawed. So is all other LENR systems that is currently following that design. Rossi's new tech may work better.
Flawed? His devices have gone from a COP of hundreds to a COP of less than one, in the last 8 years.
Rossi has had only one real paying customer for ecats, and they were extremely unsatisfied, and they sure did pay.
This is remarkable. So to my understanding, one of the Lugano team confirmed via email to you that the Lugano report was faulty due to emissivity settings on the camera? That this finding was done by member(s) of the Lugano team themselves.
Nope. That is not what was confirmed.
It was confirmed that the results of my testing of alumina emissivity values with IR and thermocouples (plot above, which does mention Lugano) and the reported respective temperature agreed with his or her results with an alumina tube.
There was no discussion of fault with the Lugano report itself.
The email was only a few sentences long.
There is no report or release. It was communicated to me in a short email reply by one of the Professors.
The only time frame that was mentioned was "after" the Lugano test.
How many people, or who else were involved was not mentioned.
The confirmation was that results of testing of an alumina tube returned results that agree with my second (RH) plot above, in post #375.
Although vague, there was mention of a preference to using non-radiation type measurements, but It was unclear if this had been done, was in progress, or merely being contemplated.
Hopefully there will be some public comment at some point. I am not really counting on it.
(My follow-up email was not answered).
Omega Engineering offered a free gift with a first purchase (thermocouples, extension wire, ect., in my case) which turned out to be a decent basic DVM.
Shane D. ,
The rad inspector would have checked everywhere. Since the mezzanine was not of interest at the time of the deposition, any comments regarding it will be unbiased.
I believe that for a page fee of some sort, the complete depositions are available for the asking.
Not sure how it fits in with the discussion, but a State of Florida Radiation Inspector visited Doral at IH's request. All he did was check for radiation, and left after finding none. Nothing else came of it...end of story. I took that at the time to mean that the government does not care what process you say the machine is powered by, or the type fuel used. As long as it does not emit harmful radiation, meets emissions standards, and has been demonstrated to be safe, they will sign off on it.
The full transcript of the Doral radiation inspector (Stokes) needs to be acquired. I am certain that the inspector checked out the mezzanine.
Nice work, LDM.
The Lugano emissivity problem has been experimentally verified by at least one of the Professors, BTW.
Paradigmnoia: Of course I was not talking about scintillator but Pancake detector. Scintillator is not sensitive for radiation from this experiment. So when I am writing anything about radiation it is always Pancake.
I realized that after I typed it, but I had a flight to catch and didn't have time to fix it.
The spectrum must still take a while to collect, though.
Radiation level was still very clearly elevated (over 3 times) what is roughly 210 CPM
Doesn't sound terribly sensitive. It must take a long time to get a spectrum.
I am used to background around 50 to 200 CPS with a scintillometer.
For the benefit of those of us who only speak english (and barely, on a good day), could you provide a one or two paragraph summary? Many thanks if possible.
There is an English version. I accessed it two days ago.
Try this (you may have to modify or remove the firefox part): https://webcache.googleusercon…gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab
I have some yellow candy bowls that run over 1.7% uranium, made in the mid 1930’s.
I have seen meta-autunite that glows in the daylight and in the dark for a while.
Garnets weather from the outside in. So of course the holes are on the outside.
If it makes you happy, then believe what you like.
The planes of weakness are not random, whether the sources of attack are, or not.
What is more amazing is that a garnet (and many, many other minerals) will self-assemble under the correct PT-chemical regime to the level of organization that makes a wonderful crystal, at all.