Posts by LDM

    You are telepathic! We are vacationing and just played yesterday in Tucson. And I appreciate you using the correct word Skeptic rather than Pseudo skeptic.


    Don't let yourself being distracted by all the comments on this forum while having vacation.

    Tucson is a nice place to visit. Many thing to do in the city and the surroundings.

    Went several times there when I was living in Arizona.

    As I wrote earlier, if new idea's arise I would pick up this thread again.



    For several reasons I did not find any reason to do new Lugano based calculations nor find the time to continue studying atom theory as I intended.

    But in between I did a new investigative calculation on the second MFMP thermal dogbone test.

    The calculation is based on the DB_test3_TC test.

    Note that this calculation is indicative, not exact due to the unknown heat distribution in the MFMP dogbone for the used power of 300 Watt.


    see : https://drive.google.com/drive…xJkjesxe4kXzczVnlfajhjbDQ


    We start with a calculation on the heater coil of the MFMP dogbone.

    Specifications are :


    Diameter 11.1 mm

    Windingen under ribs : 76.5

    From the coil specificatione we derive a total wire length under the ribs of 265.05 cm

    Total wire length in the dogbone : 273.05 cm (two times 4 cm in the end caps added)


    This means that 265.05/273.05 = 0.971 of total coil power is dissipated under the ribs

    (Did not take into account the heater wire length outside the dogbone since it is not known)


    From the DB_test3 we use for our calculation the last value for the 300 watt applied power.

    (sample number 147)

    The important data :


    Optris temperature-----------------505.4 degree C

    Applied power------------------------300.24 Watt


    The power under the ribs is now calcualted as 0.971 x 300.24 = 291.5 Watt

    We have 10 measurement sections, thus the power per rib section = 29.15 watt


    For the temperature of 505.4 degree C with an ambient temperature of 17.5 degree C the calculated convective heat transfer coefficient is 13.49

    Due to the ribs being close which reduces the convective heat transfer we have to correct this with a factor 0.735 which brings the value to 0.735 x 13.49 = 9.92

    (The value of 0.735 was interpolated from two CFD simulations)


    Area of a section is 0.00263 m^2.

    Thus the disspated convective power is 9.92 x 0.00263 x (505.4 - 17.5) = 12.73 Watt


    Radiated power 29.15 -12.73 = 16.42 Watt (Discarding the limited lateral power dissipation)


    We now us the following formula to calculate the emissivity

    See for an explanation of the formula :


    Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)


    E = σ x Af x e x Fbg x { 1/(1 - (1-Fbg)(1-e))} x T^4


    with---E--------Radiated energy (11.84 Watt)

    ---------σ--------Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67·10-8 W/m2K4)

    ---------Af-------Fin area of a section (0.00263 m^2)

    ---------e--------Emissivity

    ---------Fbg-----View factor of ribs to background ( 0.572 )

    ---------T--------Temperature (Kelvin) ( 505.40 + 273.15 = 778.55 K )


    Before we apply the formula we have to correct the Optris temperature reading due to the increase in apparent emissivity caused by the reflection between the ribs.

    The apparent emissivity is

    e' = e /(1 - (1-Fbg)(1-e))


    For the used Optris in band emissivity setting of 0.95 the apparent emssivity becomes 0.97.

    The relationship between temperature and n value as used in the formula given by Optris is given in the following post :


    Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)


    Applying this to the formula given by Optris we find that the real temperature was 499 degree C (772.15 K) with a value of n = 2.311.


    Filling in the found values in the above equation for the radiated energy we find for the emissivity a value of 0.41.

    This calculated indicative value is much lower then the broad band emissivity value of Alumina for the temperature of 499 degree C, the value being 0.65.

    This becomes clear if we plot this value in the graph of the broad band emissivity as a function of temperature for Alumina.

    This is shown in the following figure :





    The much lower calculated emissivity then that of Alumina indicates that the MFMP dogbone was not casted of pure (> 98 %) Alumina, but instead must have contained other components or being based on an other type ceramic.

    The question is then if the MFMP as a part of their test did check if their Dogbone was casted conform their material specification.


    Note :


    As a verification I did a FEM simulation with broad band emissivities set at a value of 0.41 at the middle of the dogbone and got simulated center temperatures of 497 degree C, close to the 499 C calculated from the Optris. It confirms that to get a temperature of about 499 C the emissivity has to be much lower then that of Alumina.



    Add to that that Rossi's partner is targeting the team to become a little less then 100 people in the near future.

    Also note that in addition to their already present surveillance camera's they also installed some very professional intrusion detection camera systems.

    And there is something to be learned from their purchasing activities.


    Have fun ! (I have)

    Hello Robert, robert bryant


    In my opinion your assumed average convective heat transfer coefficient of 4 is too low.

    Calculating the convective heat trannsfer coefficient with the method used in the Lugano report I get different values.

    Note that I verified the Lugano method by Computional fluid dynamic simulation which showed that the method used in the Lugano report was accurate.

    For your sections I get, using the Lugano calculation method, the following results for the convective heat transfer coefficients :


    -LE------1-------2--------3-------4--------5-------6-------7-------8-------9------10------RE

    4.84---6.47---6.90---7.14---7.11---7.00---7.13---7.07---6.91---6.97--6.34--4.68


    Correcting the average powers you calculated with an average value of 4 now gives the following convective power per section


    -LE------1--------2--------3--------4--------5---------6-------7---------8--------9------10-----RE

    3.00---8.27--11.80--14.39--14.08--12.85--14.25--13.62--11.84--12.55--7.42--2.53


    The total convective power now becomes 126.60 Watt

    Total power now becomes 141.53 + 126.60 = 268.13 Watt


    However as I said in my previous post, also the radiated and convective power on the lefthandside and righthandside should be inclused.

    A quick calculation shows that the total radiated and convective power from left and righthandside will be about 20 Watts total

    This brings the total up to 268 + 20 = 288 Watt.


    That is close to the 300 Watt input power


    Robert,


    Did you in your calculation include the dissipated heat of the vertical outher walls ?

    The convective heat transfer coefficient for a vertical wall is more effective and has a value twice that of the round area which you quoted for the left and right ends.

    Including this will increase the total calculated power

    The method used relies in a thermocouple that is in contact with the inner atmosphere of the reactor and thus in contact with H, which we know causes drift (to some extent reversible) in many thermocouples. T


    From the figure in the document we see that the internal thermocouple was a Tungsten-Rhenium thermocouple

    Tungsten-Rhenium thermocouples can to my knowledge be safely used in an Hydrogen environment.


    The following quote on Tungsten_Rhenium thermocuples from Omega, a thermocuple supplier :


    Thermocouple combinations can be used to 4200°F (2315°C) in hydrogen or inert-gas atmospheres

    and in a vacuum.

    While this might seem at first off-topic, it can be related to the fact that the arrangement of the heater in Mizuno systems could potentially have a role in how easily excess heat will be observed or its magnitude.

    If indeed a magnetic field is harmfull to the reaction, then the (cartridge) heater used in Mizumo systems shoud have a bifilair wound coil to minimize the magnetic field.

    It has also been my conclusion that the presence of a magnetic field has a possible negative influence on the LENR reaction


    I once questioned Rossi on this on his blog on the subject, his answer was that he could not give an answer since it was part of a patent application


    The report


    Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder.


    of the ECAT HT test had several versions, in the last one some additional information was added in the appendix. In figure 3 of the appendix the harmonic patterns for all three phases where shown. The third phase shows no harmonics which means that this phase was not used.

    If the magnetic fields of the other two phases are opposite they cancel which would mean that in such case the ECAT did run without a magnetic field.


    This could als been the case in the Lugano test. If the dummy run was run with all three phases on and the active runs with two phases, it can also explain the large drop in heater resistance which some calculated (wrongly assuming that the active runs where also run with three phases)


    In addition it gives a possible explanation why so many replications failed.


    A long time ago I discussed with Alexander Parkhomov on the subject and he stated to me that indeed the influence of the magnetic field needed further investigation.


    So you might be right

    I’d say Bob presented the work Parkhomov did with a Nickel Hydrogen reactor loosely inspired in the Italian’s abandoned “dog bone” design, but Parkhomov has since long moved onto his own line of research and for this experiment he used a commercial Russian made alloy, and he also ditched completely the use of LiAlH4, he says that it prevents any reaction to happen. Parkhomov also found evidence of possible transmutation in the fuel and the reactor once the experiment finished and he analyzed every component for this purpose.


    In his AP2, PROTOK-6 and VV3 reactors Parkhomov used as fuel a combination of nickel powder and LiAlH4.

    According to Parkhomov all three reactors produced excess heat.

    That would not be the case if LiAlH4 is killing the reaction.

    Dear LDM

    if Lugano reactor's was made as i explained by a poster at ICCF with double compartment , what could be implication with heat released you measured ?

    Hello David,


    As far as Lugano is concerned I have a problem with the principle which you outlined on your poster.

    The problem is that when I calculate the total weight of the Lugano ECAT from the FEM model, I get alsmost exactly the weigth reported.

    This means that it is not possible to add a stainless steel tube because it would increase the weight too much.

    However if there where some cavities in the end caps then that might possibly compensate for the adition of a (thin) metal tube.

    This brings up another question : Does it need to be a tube or may it also be a very thin steel layer on the inside of the ceramic tube ?


    As far as the heat release is concerned, the outside temperatures are largely determined by the emissivity and convective heat transfer coefficient. This results in a dissipated power which must be equal to the generated power inside the reactor.

    So internal power with the emissivities and convective heat transfer coefficients determine the outside temperatures.


    Internal temperatures are determined by internal heat generated and the outside wall temperature.

    The internal heat need to pass the internal thermal resistance determined by the thermal conductivities of the internal materials used.

    The lower the thermal conductivities (Larger thermal resistance) the more drive needs to be applied to get the power out. This drive is due to the internal temperatures and lower thermal conductivities means higher internal temperatures to get the power out.


    So adding an internal metal tube does not change the external tempertures much.

    There is an exception, stainless steel has a relative high thermal conductivity at higher temperatures. This means that heating power can be tranfered by the tube to places with lower temperatures.

    This means that the temperature distribution both at the inside and outside of the reactor can change.

    As a result some places will get a higher temperature, other places a lower outside temperature. However the total dissipated power stays the same.


    If you want me to do a FEM simulation for a specific situation you have in mind then I need a cross section drawing with dimensions, materials used, applied heater power and possibly internal generated power not related to the heating element and the supposed location and distribution of that power source. (Also for non Lugano type reactors)

    I can then make a CAD drawing of it, create a FEM model and do a thermal simulation.

    It is quite some work so only if it really helps you with answering some questions you have you can ask me.

    LDM


    Thank you so much for all your painstaking investigative work on the Lugano experiment. Since it is scattered over a long time period, would you be able to write a couple of paragraphs describing your main conclusions. That would be useful to many members I'm sure.


    You have a PM in 'conversations' btw.


    I will take into consideration your suggestion to make a document summerizing the conlusions of the different posts if I think it can be done in a meaningfull way.

    So I want first to make an outline of such a document and then decide if it will suit its pupose.

    However I have currently many other activities (Indeed, also doing paintwork on the house) which prevent me to make a start soon.

    So if I decide to make the document, it for sure will take a long time (month's) to be completed.

    The Lugano investigation


    I have currently no new idea's about research I can do to investigate the contents of the Lugano report any further. (but am willing to respond to suggestions if it is within my capabilities)

    If new idea's arise I will pick up this thread again, howver am planning to devote my time now to learn more about the theoretical aspects of LENR.

    (Also winter is nearing, so soon I can not paint the house outside anymore)

    When studying I learned quantum mechanics but can't remember anything about it anymore, no problem because the old quantum mechanics is depricated anyway.

    So I have to start from scratch again and would welcome any suggestions for a good introductory in atom theory. (really from the beginning)


    Thank you all for the discussions, comments.


    LDM

    Parkhomov claimed he made Rossi's idea work. He may have "showed" it but there are no credible replications. Nor papers. Adequate evidence is still lacking, IMO.


    I have to agree with your statement.


    Currently the problem is that there are many publications of positive results which are not published or when they are published lack a scientific review.

    The other problem in the LENR field is that there is a lack of independent replications.


    However I am hopefull that given the amount of published positive results that LENR exists.

    It is now up to the scientists, so I hope the new THE NUCLEAR STRUCTURE RESEARCH GROUP will bring a positive effect.

    (it means fake still in progress)


    Rossi is a cheater, he never had a working product, he only thought up the reactor and the fuel composition.


    Then came Alexander Parkhomov, and using his fake thought up reactor design and fuel composition showed that it was working.


    ?

    Ah - but you are not remembering the key (well hidden) sentence in the report which says that for the lower temperature emissivity values they corrected the book values based on empirical results from TCs. And we do not know how this was done, or what their inferred values were, hence we cannot tell anything about the method from the dummy temperature values.


    For sure I am rembering the text in the report.

    This is the text in the report :


    It was not possible to extract any sample of the material constituting the rods, as this is firmer than that of the reactor. The rods were made of pure alumina, crystallized however with a different degree of fineness due to the industrial origin of their manufacture.

    We therefore took the same emissivity trend found in the literature as reference; but, by applying emissivity reference dots along the rods, we were able to adapt that curve to this specific type of alumina, by directly measuring local emissivity in places close to the reference dots (Figure 7).


    The curve correction was as you can read done for the rods, not for the reactor body !



    Nevertheless, the calculation for setting back of the emissivity to 1 and the resulting temperature of 342 degree C only depend on the n factor and the formula the Optris uses.

    Broadband emissivities are not used in that calculation, also not when they would have been adjusted.


    And the iteration, if that was indeed done on the Optris, would still have shown intermediate values different from what was published.


    In addition we see from the published temperatures during the iteration and the emissivities belonging to those temperatures that those emissivity values where not adjusted for the ribbed area.

    There is evidence throughout the report that total emissivities were considered. Further, Levi in reply to Mats questions, vociferously defended the use of a single (total) emissivity with the Optris in determining temperature. You will also remember a Levi-proxy on here doing the same thing. At length.


    It just beggars belief for this not to have been used. The report is very very clear on the exact algorithm, showing an example.


    It is not based on believe, but on the outcome of calculations.


    For example, assuming that inflated temperatures where used on the Optris, then you can calculate that setting back the emissivity to 1 should have resulted in a temperature of 342 degree C, not the 366.6 degree C which is mentioned in the report.


    Also it was shown in post #548 that iterating to the end temperature on the Optris does not result in the shown iteration temperatures presented in the report.


    In adition to this all other calculations presented in my different posts have shown that the use of total emissivities on the Optris is in disagreement with the results of those calculations.

    As you state, the report shows an example, but the results of that example are not in agreement with the physical laws when one considers the use of broadband emissivities on the Optris.


    So one can hardly maintain that total emissivities where used ON THE OPTRIS.

    However I showed in post #711 that total emissivities can be used WITH THE OPTRIS.

    A small but significant difference which is in line with your statement above that Levi defended the use of a single (total) emissivity with the Optris.


    Thus total emissivities where indeed considered ! (but in a different way)

    The X-ray crystallography analysis shows no traces of anything other than alumina, therefore it was not the reactor body (Ribs area) that was tested, because the reactor body composition is far less than 100% alumina, whether it was painted or not.


    Concerning the iteration method you claim that this was done with broadband emissivities on the Optris because it is so written in the report.

    (We have in your opinion to take the report literally in that case)


    Also in the report was written that the sample was taken from the ribs and showed a composition of 99.9% Alumina.

    But now that this is contrary to what you believe, we have not to believe what is written in the report ?


    Shall we then agree that statements in the report may be incorrect, both for the iteration and where the sample was taken ?

    Lugano dummy run recalculation for Zirconia coated ECAT


    As Para already stated in an earlier post, there will be not much difference in measured temperatures between Alumia and Zirconia as far as the Optris is concerned.

    This makes it possible, using the published temperatures in the Lugano report, to calculate approximately the total convective and radiated power if the Lugano ECAT was coated with Zirconia.

    The attached Excel file shows this calculation.


    Since for dummy run temperatures the broad band emissivity of Zirconia is lower the the emissivity of Alumina, the radiated power must also be lower.

    A calculation shows that the total radiated and convective power for the ECAT inclusive rods is 429.8 Watt versus 479.7 Watt applied power. (See attached zip file with Excell sheet for the calculation)

    The difference is - 10% .


    For the ribbed section the total power in case of Zirconia is 243 Watt while for Alumina the calculated power of the central section was 282 Watt.

    The difference for the ribbed section is thus about -14%.

    Also the 243 Watt is not in line with the the about 290 Watt dissipated by the heater coil in the ribbed section.


    The conclusion from the recalculation is then that is seems unlikely that the Lugano ECAt was coated with Zirconia.

    This conclusion is in line with the sample x ray christallography analysis which showed no traces of Zirconia peaks on positions 28 and 32, the main peaks for Zirconia.




    it is certain that the Professors used the method explicitly described in the report in over one page of writing and tables

    It was explicitely stated in the report that assigning an emissivity of 1 a temperature of 366.6 degree C was obtained. (Table 2a)


    However if we assume a non inflated temperature of 450.3 degree C, then setting back the emissivity to 1 would have resulted in a temperature of 420.9 degree C.


    if we take the text explicitly and assume that broad band emisivities where used on the Optris, , then the real temperature would have been 377 degree C.

    If that was the real temperature, then for an emissivity setting of 1 the Optris would have shown a temperature of 342 degree C.


    The conclusion is then that the method explicitly described by the Lugano team is not in agreement with the data published.

    This means that or the published data is wrong or their method is not explicitly described.


    Take your choise.