Posts by LDM

    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.



    The Lugano iteration procedure ?


    In the attachment to this post a procedure is presented which can be used in combination with the Optris to find the temperature and emissivity (for Alumina).

    It includes an iteration procedure outside the Optris.

    When the dummy run of the Lugano report is recalculed using the method presented, then the initial temperature to be used by the iteration procedure, the intermediate values of the iteration and the final temperature obtained have values close to those presented in the Lugano report.

    Using a MFMP ravi file the procedure is also checked for higher temperatures then used during the Lugano dummy run. The conclusion is that at higher temperatures the results are still accurate.

    The procedure also shows that the temperatures can be accurately measured without calibrating the Optris. Also the procedure uses only information from the Alumina broadband emissivity curve during the iteration.

    Since the recalculated data for the dummy run iteration is in close agreement with the values presented in the Lugano report, the presented procedure might have been the one used by the Lugano team.

    It is however no proof that this indeed the case but shows that such a procedure outside the Optris is at least possible.

    If this understanding should be the good, Mizuno's process to put Pd onto Ni by hands, should be better than for example sputtering i plan.


    Just an idea


    What about stopping the sputtering process at an early stage ?

    There may then be localized places which are covered with other areas in between which are not covered.

    Since the Reynolds number is proportional to the diameter of a tube, you can convert the turbulent flow in a tube to a laminar flow by stacking small tubes in the large tube (Or have an insert with many small, long holes)

    The smaller diameters can bring down the Reynolds number in each sub tube to a value low enough that at the output of the insert, the flow in each sub tube is laminar.

    Puting a hot wire anemometer near the output will then enable an accurate reading.


    Using this technique in mass flow controllers we found that mass flow could be accurate quantative measured and that the curve was following the physical laws and as a result only a three point calibration of the curve was needed. This while many competing mass flow meters had problems with turbulance and thus needed multipoint calibrations (even up to 10 points)


    While i was not involved in the above physical design and have the above only by statements from others involved, I reviewed the electronics used with the mass flow meter/controller.

    It is good to be consistently comparing to the same data.


    When I made the plot some time ago, I was not interested in the low values

    So the plot was not made to be an exact match with the Lugano data range.

    But it is the same data for the temperature range shown.



    However, consider the low temperature range in this overlay plot containing multiple Al2O3 emissivity vs temperature data points. (Blue line is from Lugano Plot 1)


    That plot is the same as published in :


    HANDBOOK OF THE INFRARED OPTICAL PROPERTIES OF AI2O3,

    CARBON, MGO, AND ZRO2. VOLUME 1


    Note from the reference on page II-4 in that handbook what kind of samples where tested and included in the plot :


    Spectral Emittance and reflectance of Powders, Powder on metalic substrate, Condensed Oxides on sollid Propellant Combustions products, refractory materials, ....


    With al those physical differences in samples, you will indeed get a very deverse plot.



    I once compared the Lugano plot with NASA data for solid Alumina which showed that from 500 degree up, the Lugano plot has almost identical values as those measured and published by NASA.

    This has given me some confidence that at least in that range the values must be correct.


    Also the COP values you calculated for your rod measurements at different temperatures are about 1, which means that the Lugano emissivities you used must be about correct. (At least for the Durapot)





    Is that the Lugano Plot 1 alumina E vs T curve on there? I haven’t seen much evidence for that that little drop in E at the low T end of the plot.


    Note that my plot starts at 220 degree C instead of 0 degree C in the published plot 1 of the Lugano report.

    The Alumina emissivity values I used are the digitized ones from the MFMP.

    I don’t follow where 8 windings under the Ribs comes from. There should be 3 x 9.5 wraps under the ribs, based on the original patent application drawing



    Taking the drawing I count 9 windings per phase

    See your update drawing below



    The difference is because in my first count I determined the number of windings by counting the full tops and then subtracted 1, which gives 9 -1 = 8 complete windings.

    The drawing indeed shows some not complete windings at both ends, but I assumed that those would be outside the rib area.

    If we take also into account the not complete windings at the ends, then I get 9 windings total.


    When evaluating all the power distributions for the different coil options I found that 3 x 8 windings under the ribs gives the best temperature profile match with the Lugano dummy run when doing a FEM simulation.

    (Did not test with halve windings, but believe that 3 x 8.5 might even be better)


    For 8.5 windings the power under the ribs will be about 300 watt

    Per section 30 Watt

    The power density will then be (30 - 11.25 )/0.001504 = 12467 Watt/square meter

    The difference is then about 1 %.


    For 9 windings the power under the ribs will be about 313 watt which gives

    (31.3 - 11.25 )/0.001504 = 13307 Watt/square meter

    The difference is then about 8.3 %.


    However for 9 and more windings in order to get a power distribution in line with Lugano, meaning that also enough power goes into the caps and the rods, the windings in those cases need to continue for a small distance in the caps.

    This lowers the power under the ribs close to the 290 Watts again (a few Watts more)

    But that the windings extend somewhat into the caps is not shown in the drawing.


    Nevertheless, even if a coil of 9 windings is fully under the ribs, then since temperature is proportional to the power density raised to the power 1/4, the temperature deviation is 2% (Kelvin value)

    For the about 730 degree K, this means a temperature difference of + 14.6 degree C, even higher then the 454 degree and not close to the about 380 degree C which we would expect if we recalculate the temperature of 454 degree C if that temperature was inflated.


    But as always, the calculations are approximations and thus need to be considered indicative.

    However since the expected temperatures are far from corrected inflated temperatures I expect the reported dummy run temperatures to be correct.









    Another Lugano dummy run temperature check.


    For an internally heated tube/rod type shape there is for a section in the middle limited lateral heat conduction since the temperatures on both sides of the section have temperatures close to the temperature of the section itself.

    This means that most heat in such a section must be radially dissipated by convection and radiation.


    Using the measurement information provided by Para for his rod in an attachment to his post #634, we can use his data for a section temperature verification of the Lugano dummy run.


    For this analysis we use Para's first measurement at time 20.59 for section 3 (near the middle).

    We have the following data :


    Total heater power-----------------85.41 Watt

    Heater coil length---------------------6.1 cm

    Section length (section 3)---------- 2.5 cm


    This means that (2.5/6.1) x 85.41 = 35.0 Watt is dissipated by the heater in section 3

    From this power we subtract the convective power.

    For calculating the convective power we use the method as shown in the Lugano report since that the method was found to be in close agreement with CFD simulations.

    (see post #382)

    The calculated convective power then becomes 10.87 watt


    Thus 35.00 - 10.87 = 24.13 Watt needs to be get rid off by radiation and some (limited) lateral conduction.


    The dimensions of Para's rod section 3 are


    Diameter------------0.025 Meter

    Length----------------0.025 Meter


    Thus the area is Pi x .025 x .025 = 0.001963 square meter


    The dissipated (mostly) radiated heat per area for section 3 is then 24.13/0.001963 =

    12292 Watt/square meter


    We are now comparing this to the disspated heat per area of area 5 of the Lugano ECAT during the dummy run.

    Following the drawing in the patent the heater winding under the ribs is 8 windings with a diameter of about 1 cm. (length under the ribs is 20 cm)

    If we calculate this through for the dummy run then the dissipated power under the ribs becomes 290 Watt

    Power per section of 2 cm then becomes (2/20) x 290 = 29 Watt

    Convection is the calculated 14.96 watt (see post #393) but must be multiplied by the convective correction factor for the ribs.

    This correction value was found to be 0.752 and is due to the less efficient convection which is caused by the ribs being close to each other.

    The convected power of section 5 is then 14.96 x 0.752 = 11.25 Watt

    Thus the dissipated radiated (and some lateral) heat of section 5 becomes 29.00 - 11.25 = 17.75 Watt.

    The effective radiative area of section 5, rib area and view factor applied, is 0.001504 square meter.

    (For an explanation of effective area see post #20)


    Thus the dissipated radiated and minor lateral heat for section 5 during the Lugano dummy run becomes 17.75/0.001504 = 11801 Watt/square meter


    The difference between both the 12292 Watt/square meter from Para's rod and the 11801 Watt/square meter for section 5 of the Lugano dummy run is only 4.2%.


    This means that the surface temperature of section 5 of the Lugano dummy run must be close to the value wich Para measured for section 3 of his rod, the value being 451.3 degree C.


    The reported value in the Lugano report for section 5 during the dummy run was 454.0 degree C, indeed close to the value of 451.3 degree which Para measured.

    Thus the in the Lugano report reported value of 454 degree C for section 5 of the dummy run must be (close to) correct.