Posts by LDM

    DO you have any other information, other than Rossi says, that Leonardo has a robotic factory, many employees in R&D, marketing, manufacturing, a service, installation and sales team ready to roll? Anything that proves that Rossi has a customer and will be installing in the coming weeks more plants to sell heat? I know future will tell, but what we can tell from this point in time, is, that Rossi is still a one man show, doing terrible presentations from his condo. This we know for sure, thanks to Frank Ackland, who was surprised to hear where to travel for this important show...

    I don't think that Leonardo has what you stated above.

    In my opinion his partner is assisting in the product development and also doing the manufacturing, service and installation.

    And if they as stated are a large international company they would have enough resources.

    That solves also the problem of having the needed licences to do those installations.

    In that case Rossi is not a one man show.

    Lugano active run period 16 recalculation if temperatures where inflated.

    The attached spreadsheet contains a recalculation of the Lugano active run period 16 if the temperatures where inflated due to using broadband instead of in-band emissivities on the Optris thermal camera.

    (Calculation when temperatures where not inflated was published in post #522 )

    The recalculation assumes that a factor of 2/3 was already included in the reported rod powers.

    However since it was not expliciy stated that the Lugano testers applied this factor 2/3, the sub page for the rod powers in the spreadsheet also includes the calculation for the case that the factor 2/3 was not applied.

    Note also that since the calculations are based on average temperatures, the results must be interpreted as approximate values.

    The recalculation with the established lower temperatures results in a total convective and radiated power of 1329 Watt assuming the factor of 2/3 was applied to the reported rod powers.

    If the factor of 2/3 was not applied to the rod powers the total calculated power would have been 1258 Watt

    The total applied electrical power for this run was 865 Watt.

    Rod temperatures Lugano active run period 16 if factor 2/3 was not applied

    When the factor 2/3 was not applied to the rod power, we have the following data

    Convective power--------87.94 Watt

    Radiated power-----------88.47 Watt

    Total power---------------176.41 Watt

    Iterating with both the convective heat tranfer coefficient h and the emissivity on the total power of 176.41 watt for one set of three rods gives the following result

    --------------------------------------------Temp----convective power----radiated power----total power


    h and emissivity iteration-------103.18----------104.84-----------------71.57-----------------176.41

    Using the temperature of 103.18 degree C with its associated broad band emissivity of 0.684 the recalculated average rod temperature in case broadband instead of in-band emissivities where used on the Optris becomes 85.72 degree C ( n = 4.171).

    When making the spreadsheet for Lugano dummy run period 16 in case the temperatures where inflated also a rod power calculation for the temperature of 85.72 degree C will be included.

    The 2/3 Rod adjustment factor is not explicitly shown to be applied to the Active Runs in the report.

    The convective and radiant powers are shown in a short table after a brief discussion, and must be considered to be each to have been adjusted already by the 2/3 factor before being listed if the 2/3 was indeed applied. However, the report does not indicate if this was the case or not.

    For the Dummy run, the convective and radiant power were first totalled, then the 2/3 factor was applied.

    It is indeed correct that this is not explicitly shown in the report and your further remarks are to the point.

    So i propose based on my previous post to base the calculation of Lugano run period 6 for the case the temperatures where inflated on the presumption that the factor 2/3 was applied.

    But in addition to that I will also calculate the average rod temperatures for the case the factor 2/3 was not appllied and based on that temperature also the rod powers.

    It will tell us if this makes a large difference for the calculation the active run period 6 if the temperature wold have been inflated.

    Rod temperatures of Lugano active run period 16 if broadband insted of in-band emissivities on the Optris where used

    In order to be able to calculate the lower rod power of the Lugano active run period 16 in the case that the measured temperatues where inflated, we need to know the rod temperatures.

    However only the total convective and the total radiated power of the rods are given.

    To get an approximate temperatures we have three possibilties to determine average temperatures.

    - Iterate between h and the temperature till the reported convective power is reached

    - Iterate between the emissivity and the temperature untill the reported radiated power is reached

    - Iterate with both changing h and emssivity temperatures untill the total power is reached

    For Lugano active run 16 the following data was given for the power of one set of three rods

    Convective power--------87.94 Watt

    Radiated power-----------88.47 Watt

    However the Lugano testers applied afterwards a factor 2/3.

    Before continuing we need to undo this by multiplying both the convective and radiated heat by 3/2

    The corrected powers become

    Convective power--------131.91 Watt

    Radiated power-----------132.71 Watt

    Total power-----------------264.62 Watt

    With the above corrected data all three types of iterations where done with the following results

    --------------------------------------------Temp----convective power----radiated power----total power


    h iteration----------------------------120.28----------131.90------------------95.08----------------226.98

    emissivity iteration----------------145.33----------173.04----------------132.70----------------305.74

    h and emissivity iteration-------132.55----------151.87----------------112.75----------------264.62

    As expected none of the iterations get both the convective and radiated power about equal to the reported powers.

    This is due to the fact that the convective power is a linear function of the temperature, while the radiated power depends on the 4th power of the temperature (in Kelvin).

    For a recalculation it is proposed to use the combined h and emissivity iteration since the power is equal to the calculated power and the temperature calculated is about the average of both the h iteration and the emissivity iteration.

    It must however be understood that the found temperature is an approximation.

    Using the temperature of 132.55 degree C with its associated broad band emissivity of 0.696 the recalculated average rod temperature in case broadband instead of in-band emissivities where used on the Optris becomes 111.17 degree C ( n = 3.938).

    The found average temperature of 111.17 degree C for the rods can be used to calculate the approximate power of the rods in case the temperatures of the Lugano active run period would have been inflated by using broadband emissivities on the Optris.

    The heat distribution in the Lugano Ribs area is remarkably flat. This is because the Caps are heated, as well as the Rod ends, which limits thermal losses outwards from the Ribs area.

    In my opinion there is another effect in play

    The ribs closest to the caps and the inner side of the heated caps are viewing each other for a significant part.

    Since both are at elevated temperature, the heat exchange of the involved areas becomes much smaller.

    This smaller heat exchange must be compensated by a higher temperature in order to get the power out.

    This will result in that the temperature of the ribs close to the inner side of the end caps will be raised.

    (for the ribs farther away from the end caps the effect is also present, however to a less extend)

    This might also an explanation for the flatter profile.

    That the MFMP test had a more parabolic profile is also due to a much larger heater wire length under the ribs compared to the heater wire length under the caps then was the case for the Lugano ECAT.

    What I learned from interpreting some simuations is that the following might be the case

    1. To get to the reported cap temperatures, the heater coil might have been running for some length also under the end caps

    2. You can not from radiation/convection get much power into the rods, thus almost all power to the rods needs to be delivered by the heater wire. 4 cm into the rods is in my opinion not enough.

    3. If most of the power to the rods is delivered by the heater wire, then the rods cause a kind of thermal barier near the end cap. This barier limits to a great extend the loss of power at the side of the end cap, thereby reasing the temperature in the end cap

    The question now is which heater configurations are fullfilling these requirements and have also the required total resistance.

    If it is limited to a few cases, then you can for each case calculate the power under the ribs.

    Then test your model with the lowest and highest power setting required for getting the same power under the ribs.

    It will give you the maximum and minimum center temperature of the ribs.

    You can then compare those with those in the Lugano report and those of the MFMP test.

    Maybe you can draw some conclusions from it.

    I have been going over the construction of the MFMP Dogbone replica of the Lugano device.

    An important aspect is the lead passing through the Cap. The '3 phase' version (3 windings, but wired in series outside of the caps due to single phase power supply) failed before the arrival of the Optris, so only the single phase version was imaged by the Optris IR camera.

    Any reason why the Kantal wire failed ?

    In general Kantal (if produced by Kantal) is very reliable.

    Maybe Alan S has some suggestions ?

    Anyway, note that the Caps are essentially entirely heated by conduction from the Ribs area, since a copper sleeve was placed over top of each of the leads, crimped to the supply winding lead at the Ribs-Cap interface, and the supply cable clamped to the lead while inside that copper sleeve.

    (This was to prevent the lead from burning off, as was experienced with one of the leads in the three winding version)

    Since, as you also noted in one of your posts, the conduction, even for a reasable conductive material as Alumina, is quite limited sideways, the center temperature of the ribbed area is almost not dependent what is happening in the caps and to the caps rod interface.

    I see that also in my FEM simulations.

    So if you apply to the ribbed area the power density you want to test with, then the center rib area temperature can in my opinion still be used for comparative measurements.

    Please could you make two more spreadsheets in the same form factor as the Dummy one, (I realize that this quite onerous), for both the recalculated lower temperature Run 16 and your COP 5 version of Run 16 ? Then it will easier to see what the simulation is doing. The Ribs can be treated as a single section for now. I am more interested in chasing why ~ 24% of the electrical input goes into the Rods and Caps, but ~ 50% goes out, when ~76 % of the input power goes into the thin Ribs section in the Dummy cases.

    I completed as per your request the spreadsheet for the COP 5 version.

    See attachment.

    I still need to make a start on the one for the recalculated lower temperatures.

    (Working now on how to get the temperatures of the rods, most likely a separate post)

    Length of heater wire in the rods

    A few weeks ago I did some analysis using data from the MFMP thermal dogbone test based upon the adapted emissivities which I found to limit the errors between thermal and applied powers.

    I assumed two different length of heater wire in the rods, 4 cm and 6 cm.

    These leads to two different heating distributions and thus also to two different power densities under the ribs.

    Based on the found power densities I recalculated from the MFMP data the temperatures of zones 5 through 9 if the emsissivities would have been those of alumina.

    For 4 cm of heating wire in the rods I calculated a temperature of 510.69 degree C.

    For 6 cm of heating wire in the rods the temperature found was 440.78 degree C.

    Since the temperature of 440.78 for the 6 cm heater wire in the rods is the closest to the reported 449.9 degree C in the Lugano report, it is an indication (as far as my assumptions about the MFMP test hold) that indeed the length of the heating wire in the rods is probably more then the 4 cm assumed.

    Note also that the if we assume inflated temperatures due to using broadband emissivities on the Optris, that the average temperaure for zones 5 through 9 in Lugano would have been 376.7 degree C.

    This value is largely outside the temperature range of 441 through 511 found by recalculating the MFMP data for different heater wire lengths in the rods.

    Suggestion for the rods:

    Take a 3 cm diameter, 50 cm long ceramic pipe (or from another material which can stand the temperature).

    Stick the halve of a heating element (coil, power resister) in at one side.

    The part sticking out simulating the heated environment of the end cap.

    Put the power on.

    I think that after a short time it will be acting like a horizental flue pipe in that there will be hot air current flowing in the rod from the hot heater side to the other end which is cold.

    It would possibly explain why the rods are hotter near the cold side then would be expected from conduction only.


    Your modified e in your Dummy spreadsheet due to IRM and View Factor seems OK to me in general.

    When viewing the output power distribution Rods%/Caps%/Ribs% the Rods seem (to me) to have a larger than expected proportion of the output for the Dummy cases, both yours and Lugano, relative to the electrical input for the respective segment. (I’ll post a little summary below in a moment)

    I already was wondering about that too and think that the length of the heater coil wire inside the rods could have been more then the 4 cm you suggested.

    For the dummy run simulation it would bring the temperatures of the ribbed area possibly a little bit down and maybe even more in agreement with the reported data but would boost significantly the power in the rods.

    A possible arangement would be a coil of 9 windings (same number of turns as shown in the IH patent application drawing) with 24 cm length (so somewhat extending under the end caps), 2 cm wire in the end caps and then 6 cm in the rods.

    As far as the output power distribution is concerned : For the two sets of rods, based on the data in the Lugano report I calculated about 118 watt while the Lugano report calculated about 130 watts.

    The dummy run recalc gave (see page 1 of the spreadsheet)

    Rods 118.38 Watt

    Caps --87.33 Watt

    Ribs --281.77 Watt

    The total power is then calculated as 487.48 Watt and the distribution becomes 24.3/17.9/57.8

    That is different from the 28.89/21.05/50.06 you are giving.

    EDIT : I now see that you compare the inflated case.

    Maybe you should add that to the text so that it is clear what data you are presenting

    What range of W/mK are you using for the Rods and Caps?

    I am assigning the powers to the heater sections in the model as per your suggestion for the power division.

    A section power is then evenly distributed over the length of the heater wire in the section.

    So I am not using W/mk values.

    Please could you make two more spreadsheets in the same form factor as the Dummy one, (I realize that this quite onerous), for both the recalculated lower temperature Run 16 and your COP 5 version of Run 16 ?

    I could do that, but you can see that the time between posting calculations is often 2 or more weeks due to the time I have available.

    So yes, I can do it and am prepared to do it , but don't expect a quick response. (Also the comming two days and the weekend I am not able to spend time on it)

    If you want to continue faster you could take for example the dummy run spread sheet and modify it yourself. (they are not protected and you are in my opinion capable enough to do it)

    Let me know what you prefer.

    Then it will easier to see what the simulation is doing. The Ribs can be treated as a single section for now.

    They must be treated as a single section since the Lugano report gives only accumulated data for the active runs, not the detailed data per section.

    And for the rods no average temperatures are given.

    So we have to find a solution for that if we want to include the rods in the calculations

    I am more interested in chasing why ~ 24% of the electrical input goes into the Rods and Caps, but ~ 50% goes out, when ~76 % of the input power goes into the thin Ribs section in the Dummy cases.

    See the comment above about the wire distribution.


    Actually, does the View Factor adjustment take into account the normal-viewed area of the tips of the ribs versus the V-cavity area?

    The view factor is the value which indeed takes into acount the change in view from the valey to the top.

    The V-grooves/Ribs are not ideal triangles with tips vanishing to zero on the outer surface.

    The view factor given is for ideal triangle shaped fins

    The normal-viewed area is more like a series of rectangles for the valleys, separated by thin rectangles which are the rib tips. So the valleys are perhaps only 90% of the normal view area, while cooler tips are perhaps the remaining 10% (for example).

    As stated, the view factor was based on triangle shaped fins.

    If the shape differs somewhat from an ideal triangle, i think that on the average the value will still be about the same. For example if at the bottem the shape is more rectangular it will cause the view factor between the fins increase in the valey, but then the shape at the top must bend more inwards, decrasing the view between the fins there. So this wll somewhat average out.


    Perhaps the apparent low power, after reducing the T from near 1400 C to near 800 C, is due to not correcting the emissivity for the ribs in the output power calculation?

    It is not clear for me what you are meaning by the above text.

    The 800 degree C is the real temperature if we assume that incorrect emissivities are used.

    The power for my simulation was derived from that the total coil wire power was 906.31 - 41.25 = 865.06 Watt,

    But using your proposed wire configuration of 4 cm in the rods, 4 cm under each end cap and under the ribs 10 windings, then the total power under the end caps and under the rips (the power of the ECAT) becomes 735 Watt.

    With that power assigned to the FEM model i get a surface temperature of just over 600 degree C in the simulation

    So the power of 735 Watt is not from a simulation, but based on the applied power and taking into account the distribution of that power.

    If this does not answer your question maybe you can explain your reasoning/question a little bit more ?

    IE: the already-high in-band emissivity of the alumina (~ 0.95) gets a small bump to near 0.97 , since there is not so much improvement to be made in the emissivity in that band by self-reflection/absorption (the rib valleys are a weak cavity).


    In the Optris IR spectral sensitively range, the reactor is almost a black body already. However, the total emissivity used for radiant power calculations could have greater overall improvement to the emissivity made by the ribs, so that maybe a total hemispheric emissivity of 0.65 (for a flat surface) could become 0.75 when ribbed, boosting the output power at the lower re-calculated temperatures.

    The boost of the emissivity is defined by the view factor, which is fixed for the ECAT and the emissivity, which is variable and dependent on the temperature.

    The new emissivity is e /(1- Fv*(1-e)) with Fv = .42812

    With the formula applied the emssivity of .650 becomes 0.765

    However with only heater power applied, the increased emissivity must be compensated by a lower surface temperature in order to keep the total power the same.

    LDM ,

    Am I mistaking your meaning when you say the core temperature is lower than the outside temperature in your simulations?

    The inner temperature is indeed lower.

    But I explained already that this was because I was reporting average temperatures.

    And since the reactor core is longer then the ribbed area, the average of the reactor core includes much lower temperatures under the end cap, which brings the average temperure down.

    But for positions under the ribs the core temperature is higher then the temperature of the ribs as it should be

    Good to hear you have a source that may help shed a little light on it.

    The information above was told to me without me asking for it

    I am not asking my source for further information, but can confirm from what was told to me that the E analysis of alumina was not the number one on the list either.

    They explicitly explain the flawed method, and include examples.

    If they used wrong emssivities, in my opinion they would afterwards have considered this to be the most importantant shortcomming in their measurements.

    However I was told by somebody with good contacts with the Lugano team what they considered to have been their major shortcomming.

    And this major shortcomming was not that they had used wrong emissivities on the Optris, but something else which I considered to be less important.

    It made me conclude that their method of temperature measurement must have been correct.

    Sorry that I can't give more details, but I don't want to compromise my source of information


    1. At the Dummy temperatures the emissivity changes have a minor effect. This was clear on my graph. There is enough wiggle room that the temperature-power error can be fudged away. Regardless, the Professors wrote numerous comments about how they adjusted the emissivity settings and re-iterated away. They explicitly explain the flawed method, and include examples.

    The problem is that indeed the changes in emissivity are small at the dummy run temperatures, but also convection is involved.

    And at lower temperatures convection plays also a major part.

    From the dummy recalc we see a difference of about 10% between the inflated and non inflated calculation. While not very large not small either.

    Concerning the method the testers used, I already proposed an other method which also closely followed what was written in the Lugano report.

    Look also at the references 4 and 5 the testers referred to which are about emssivity and temperature seperation used for example in earth survey. These algorithms are also based on the total amount of radiation received which was also the basis for the alternative method the testers might have used and which I proposed.

    2. Perhaps your simulation is still flawed, as good as it might be. I cannot evaluate that.

    That could be the case. And it is as good as the guy who makes the model and does the simulations.

    So what can I say ?

    However my simulation of your round rod gave a temperature within a few degrees of what you measured. So it can't be that bad.

    And what would be the chance that with an incorrect model all the simulations are giving about the same results as what is reported in the Lugano report?

    3 Core temperature where? Anyways, Rossi always uses Type K. They are cheap. Note that the mini connector plug is coded yellow for type K, as is the extension wire. (see below). The thermocouple shown may have a stainless braided sleeve making it look grey (note the reflection in the 2nd thermocouple image below, and the Professors' comment below Figure 2.

    I agree from the info you provided that they indeed probably where K type

    If the outside temperature is anywhere near 1400 C, then the heater wires are hotter than that. They might survive a while at 1400 C, but not 20 days

    In my opinion Kantal wire will survive much longer if they, as is the case in the Lugano ECAT, are embedded in ceramic which prevents further oxidation by outside oxygen at high temperatures.

    I have probably enough Durapot to make a Cap.

    Maybe cast a nub of rib section on one side...

    From all simulations I did with different configurations the average temperature of the ribbed area seems to be the most constant factor.

    That is the reason why in my last analysis I used the temperature of the ribbed area

    The heat distribution at the caps is influenced by the rods and more difficult to forecast.

    Also the radiation of the caps is interacting with the radiation of the ribs, and this interaction is greater where the ribs end in the end-caps.

    So in my opinion a cap with a short stub of ribs will not be representative.

    I think the only way to get representative results is to have a full sized ECAT model.

    If you are short of Durapot for a full sized ECAT, you might consider using standard ceramic tubes and only cast the outher layer and ribs

    An other approach would be not to us the ribbed area, but based on the expected temperature to calculate based on view factor, effective area and expected convection a representative tube diameter. (if that is possible) Otherwise stated, use a tube, wind the heater coil and cast the outher layer.

    How deep shall I install the thermocouple? Maybe make it moveable?

    I would certainly try to make it moveable. What I see from the simulations is that under the end caps the core temperature is significant lower. (676 C in the middle of the core, 422 degree 2 cm in the end cap, only heater coil power applied)

    Starting with a standard rod with a smaller plug in tube at the end with an inner diameter a little bit larger then the thermocouple sheet diameter will allow you to move the thermocouple.

    I can easily wind up an appropriate heat input arrangement, and a bit extra.

    I won’t be able to use 15 ga Kanthal wire, braided, though. To big. I can match the watts range however.

    From the simulations it seems that the mass of the kantal wire has no measureable effect.

    So you can wind it from any Kantal size you like. However as you already explained, the heat distribution is important, so you have to make sure the heat distribution in the body and in the end caps are correct.


    I disagree about wrong emssivities for the following reasons :

    1. Dummy run

    The calculations and simulations of the dummy run showed that it is very unlikely that wrong emssivity settings where used

    2. Real surface temperature if wrong emissivities where used

    Using the .971 Optris value and a broad band emssivity of 0.393 for the 1412 degree C reported, gives a non inflated temperature of abouut 800 degree C (n = 1.895)

    Doing a FEM simulation with an ECAT power of 735.08 Watt gives an average temperature of the ribbed area of 628 degree C

    These temperatures are not even close.

    Thus for the active run period 16 the power does not match the non inflated temperature.

    3. Core temperature

    The average core temperature from the simulation is 609 degree

    (That this value is lower then the average surface area is due to the fact that the core continues under the end caps with their lower temperature)

    Since this temperature of 609 is much lower then the setpoint temperature of 1400 degree, the testers would have seen on the thermocouple display that they could not reach this temperature.

    About that a set point of 1400 C internally, if achieved, would melt the thermocouple .

    It depends on the type of thermocouple used.

    For such high temperatures I would use a type R or S thermocouple or even a B type.

    The B type has a gray color coding and in the thermocoupls wire in Lugano seems to have about that color.

    That the heater coil wirewould would melt at 1400 degree is not true.

    Kantal has a melting point of 1500 degree C and one of the companies i worked for has been running Kantal elements just over 1350 degree without problems

    Lugano active run period 16 recalculation - The ECAT worked - COP was 4.98

    With the FEM model developed we can analyse, using finite element analyses, the thermal behavior of the dogbone shaped ECAT for an active run.

    We are doing this analysis for the last active period 16.

    The electrical power data for this period given by the Lugano report is :

    Total power consumption was 906.31 Watt

    Joule heating was 41.25 Watt

    This leaves 906.31 - 41.25 = 865.06 Watt for heating coil wire.

    Since about 4 cm of heating wires continue in the rods, the total power in the ECAT itself is somewhat less and is calculated as being 735.08 Watt

    The average measured temperatures reported for active period 16 are

    ----------Temperature (C)-------Temperature (K)

    Cap 1----------611.09-------------------884.24

    Cap 2----------595.15-------------------868.30

    Body--------- 1412.31-----------------1685.46

    The report only gives for the active periods only the accumulated powers of the end caps , body and rods, not the seperate ones.

    However using the average temperatures given above we can calculate the approximate powers.

    We must indeed redo these calculations since for the body the Lugano team did not take into account the correct total area of the ribs, the view factor, the emissivity change due to the view factor and the correction needed for the convection of the ribbed surface. Also the temperature measurement of the body by the Optris camera was influenced by the change in emissivity due to the infinite reflection method.

    So the first thing to do is recalculate the average body temperature to the correct one.

    For the mentioned temperature the used emissivity on the Optris is .950

    View factor between the ribs is 0.428

    This changes the alumina in band emissivity to be used on the Optris from .950 to 0.971

    Using both the original and the corrected emissivity we can calulate the correct body temperature.

    The found body temperature is 1389.91 C ( n value 1.518).

    Having found the correct average body temperature we can now determine the emissivity and the convective heat transfer coefficient for the ECAT body


    Convective heat transfer coefficient-----14.542

    And with both values we can calculate the convective and radiated heat power of the body :

    Radiated body energy-----------3453.17 Watt

    Convective body energy----------523.55 Watt (uncorrected)

    Convective body energy----------269.10 Watt (Corrected with factor .514 extrapolated from earlier simulations)

    Total radiated and convected power of the body area is

    3453.17 + 269.10 = 3722.27 Watt

    For both caps we find :

    Cap 1

    ----------Radiated cap energy------101.79 Watt----( e = 0.592 )

    ----------Convective cap energy-----34.05 Watt----( h = 11.481 )

    Cap 2

    -----------Radiated cap energy---------95.36 Watt----( e = 0.597 )

    -----------Convective cap energy------33.06 Watt----( h = 11.457 )

    The total thermal power comming from the ECAT after recalculation becomes then

    3722.27 + 101.79 + 34.05 + 95.36 + 33.06 = 3986.53 Watt

    This total power is much higher then the 2886.18 Watt reported and this increase is due to the recalculation of the power of the body area.

    For the rods the Lugano report states a value of 88.47 watt due to radiation and 87.94 watt due to convection. The convection is overestimated since the testers used a correction of .667 instead of .561. Thus the convection shoud have been 87.94 x (.561/.667) = 74.00 Watt

    Total rod power for one set of rods then becomes 88.47 +74.00 = 162.47 Watt

    For two sets of rods the total power becomes 2 x 162.47 = 324.94 watt

    Total power for both the rods and the ECAT then becomes 3986.53 + 324.94 = 4311.47 Watt

    The new calculated power leads to a COP of 4311.47/865.06 = 4.98 , higher then the COP of 3.74 mentioned in the report.

    By now assigning the calculated ECAT power of 3986.53 Watt to the heating element of our FEM model, we can with the model calculate the approximate internal and surface temperatures and compare them with the data in the Lugano report. The results are :

    ---------------------------------------------Lugano---------FEM simulation----------Difference (%)

    Setpoint temperature---------------1400----------------1436----------------------- 2.6

    Average body temperature--------1412----------------1367----------------------- -3.3

    Note that the actual average body surface temperature found by the FEM simulation was 1339 C

    However for comparision with the Lugano report we must correct this temperature due to the misreading of the Optris as defined by the infinite reflection method.

    The corrected temperature is 1367 degree C (n factor 1.570) and this is the temperature reported in the table above.

    The setpoint temperature is the temperature in the inner core of the ECAT.

    In the Lugano tests this setpoint temperature is measured by a thermocouple and by adjusting the power the testers where able to arrive at the required temperature setting.

    Note that the setpoint temperature measured from the FEM data is close to the reported setpoint value of 1400 degree C the Lugano testers used for active period 16. Also the reported body temperature is close to the simulated temperature.

    Note that the above calculations are approximations since they where based on average temperatures reported.

    Despite using the average values in the above calculations my conclusion from the close agreement between reported data and the FEM simulation data is that the ECAT indeed produced excess energy with a COP of about 4.98 during period 16 of the Lugano report.


    Thank you for this more general comprehensive overview of the CE certification process

    I always have found that indentifying the applicable standards is often difficult, especially when different disciplines are involved in a product.

    The second problem I often had was how to interpret the text of the standards, since the text was not always without ambiguity.

    As far as notified bodies is concerned, some standards may require them while in other cases you can choose to use a notified body or do the tests yourself or use a non certified testlab


    You have that completely backward! Nothing can "hit the market" until AFTER regulations are written.

    Then take a look at several EU directives and and look at the dates when they where first issued.

    Then see if the products they apply to where already on the market before the directive became into effect.

    They where ! Even for items where personal safety was involved, such as for example cable ways.

    No doubt there will be similar opposition to cold fusion, if it is ever developed.

    On that I fully agree


    First, there are no current regulations for the Rossi device, so there is nothing to conform to.

    That is what I stated, no regulations in place for LENR devices

    But there are other EU regulations which are applicaple to the control circuit, electrical safety etc

    So even for a LENR heater you need for those area's conform to the regulations and put a CE mark on a product that you are complying to the applicable standards.

    There is no basis to put the CE mark on it. The EU regulatory agencies have not written any standards for it. No one can certify they are in compliance with standards that do not exist!

    As stated above, for the other area's apllicable to your product you need to put the CE mark on your product

    The rules for the CE mark are:

    I Know the rules.

    There is no specific EU harmonisation legislation for the Rossi device.

    Again wrong.

    Not for the LENR process itself, but for the other apllicable area's you need to comply.

    Second, a private individual in a building in a European city who is not even a licensed engineer would not be allowed to build a 40 MW heat source with no oversight, no inspections, or submitting plans beforehand.

    Again wrong.

    In contrast to the USA we have not the concept of a professional (licenced) engineer.

    (At least not in the country I live)

    There is even not a requirement that your certification needs to be done by an engineer.

    Don't assume that how things are done in the USA are also done in the same way in the rest of the world.

    Rossi is not a manufacturer. He does not own a manufacturing company. A large corporation might be authorized to build a 40 MW heater, but not an individual. Rossi is not even licensed as an engineer in Florida.

    Again, we don't have the concept of licensed engineers.

    He wouldn't be allowed to install an ordinary gas furnace, never mind a revolutionary nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles that he claims irradiated him.

    That is probably true for the USA and I think as a person also not in Europe.

    But belonging to a company he might.

    No, he did not. He has no idea what the CE mark is, or what it means, or who is legally authorized to use it. If you think he "nailed it" you probably do not know any of this either. You people should look up the regulations for the CE mark. It isn't just a sticker that some guy who is not even an engineer can plaster on to a 40 MW reactor on his own authority.

    Jed, I have had several courses in specific areas of CE certification and have been involved in many, many certifications and have been consulted on this area by other companies.

    So don't tell me that I don't know what it means.

    European regulation

    In Europe you can certify equipmen for use in industry to EU regulations yourself.

    (This in contrast to consumer products and some special area's)

    No certification institute needs to be involved.

    You only need to conform to the current regulations and put the CE mark on your product.

    You don't even have to report your findings.

    It is enough to keep your test results somewhere.

    And if they ask you for a report then you may make up such a report afterwards from the recorded test results and you are given time to do that.

    It is thus even possible to put a CE mark on your product, whithout having done any test and nobody knowing about it.

    And as far as I know there are no current EU regulations which can be applied to a LENR process.

    But they will probably come after a while into place after LENR heating hits the market.

    But since the regulation process is slow in the EU, that may take quite a while.

    And untill then there will be no regulations in place.


    3 phase current clamp reversal

    This point has already been discarded by the Lugano team in the past.

    See the following link…-comments-mark-e-kitiman/

    Also if only 1/3 of the power was measured due to the current clamp reversal, the actual power would have been much higher.

    In that case the body surface temperature of the ECAT would have been much higher, even higher if you also assume inflated temperatures due to using wrong emissivities on the Optris.

    And these much higher temperatures where not measured.

    As can be seen from the last FEM simulation I did the temperatures are about in agreement with the measured power. see :

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

    That Rossi says "It makes no difference because in AC reversing direction has no effect on power"

    does not mean that he is right nor does it mean it happened.

    So in my opinion this point can be deleted from your list.

    In addition to this you write about the IR measurements : "he was there showing the testers how to use his equipment"

    However the report states : "All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated in their respective manufacturers’ laboratories"

    Lugano dummy run FEM simulation - First result

    Based on a configuration with three heater coils of 10 windings under the ribbed area, I post here the first result of a thermal FEM simulation of the Lugano ECAT.

    In that simulation I assume that halve of the convective and radiated heat of the side of the end caps flows into the rods.

    The result of the simulation can be seen in the following figure.

    As can be seen the center temperatures of the simulation are somewhat higher then the center temperatures of the Lugano dummy run.

    Also the temperature profile is somewhat more parabolic (less flat) then is the case for the temperatures reported in the Lugano report.

    In my opinion the only way to get the profile of the simulation more flat is to increase the thermal conductivity inside the ECAT.

    Increasing the thermal conductivity increases the lateral thermal flow which in turn makes the thermal profile flatter and provides more heat to the end caps.

    Experimenting it was found out that standard alumina, even with a somewhat increased thermal conductivity, will not make the profile more flat.

    However if possibly another material with a much higher thermal conductivity is included in the ECAT, then the profile will be probably even more in agreement with the Lugano profile.

    The following comment in the IH patent indicates that a higher thermally conductive material could have been used inside the ECAT :

    -------Those skilled in the art will understand based on upon the

    -------present disclosure that the attributes of a thermally conductive

    -------material included in a reaction device may vary .....

    One of the highly thermal conductive ceramic materials which could have been used is AlN (Aluminium Nitride) ceramic.

    This material has compared with alumina a density of 3260 instead of 3900 Kg/m^3 and a thermal conductivity of 140 - 180 instead of 35 W/(m.K).

    But since the outside of the ECAT was, as shown by analysis, made up of alumina, in that case an outside alumina layer must have been added to the ECAT.

    Such a layer would also protect the AlN ceramic at high temperatures from degrading.

    Nevertheless the current FEM simulation indicates that the temperatures are already close the Lugano temperatures.

    Next thing to do is to spend some more time on investigating what the influence of included materials with a higher thermal conductivity has on the thermal profile.