Posts by LDM

Quote from THHuxleynew

In my hypothetical case, with R = 0.2 ohms, current will go up to of order 1000A (not quite that high, due to combined R and l, but near enough).

And there is nothing to stop having higher voltages driving a higher R coil.

I

If the coil is directly connected to the mains voltage if the scr is on, then the mains has to supply this current.

Standard 3 phase industrial connections are rated for about 35 Amps RMS per phase in Europe. I doubt if they can supply 1000 Amp, even for short moments

If an intermediate transformer is used, then since the currents are measured on the supply side, the measured current would have been lower with a factor equal to the turn ratio.

Thus i still find it very unlikely that those large currents would be flowing.

Also we have the SCR controller.

The type of scr controller used can be bougth in several versions, with different amparage rating. The maximum value being 160 Amp for the type used.

The controller has an internal overcurrent trip point of 175% of this rated value, thus 280 Amp. If it goes beyond that 280 Amp, the SCR controller shuts down.

Thus I find it very unlikely if we ever would see currents above that value.

Quote from THHuxleynew

For 2cm diameter, 50 turns, 10cm length, 2mm dia wire I get ball park around 5uH.

At 200V (possible output voltage) we have 40A/us dI/dt. That is enough for a 1000A spike 40us long or 0.25% of one half cycle at 50Hz. So for example a crest factor of order 100 likes plausible driving such a coil. This is very hand wavy, but shows that even with the Lugano coils you can drive short current spikes.

A crest factor is the ratio between peak value and effective value.
If you have a high crest factor, it means that or your peak value is high, or your effective value is low. It thus does not have to mean that your current is spiking.
The peak value is limited by the heater resistance, it can not go higher then the voltage over the heater wire devided by it's resistance. It can not "spike" to a higher value. (Ohm's law)
Thus when switching the SCR on, with the 40A/us dI/dt rate of rise the current will stop rising when it is reaching it's peak value. That will in my opinion be well before the 40 uS has been passed.
The current clamp must be able to handle the peak current. For PCE instrument clamps the peak current the PCE clamps can handle is about 10 times the rated value. Thus a 100 Amp clamp can handle a peak current of 1000 Amp. I personally doubt if such a value ever will be reached and the clamp becomes saturated. But as you stated, we don't know enoug of the internals of the gray box to make a final judgement.

Quote from Alan Smith

THHuxleynew

Are you certain that a Triac was used at Lugano? I am pretty sure that the drive system was via inverters, which are designed not to produce spikes.

The controller shown in Lugano (red box) was a COMPACT FUSION SCR power controller. (see http://ccipower.com/product-selector )

But in any case the current through a SCR or bipolar Triac is restricted by it's load, in that case the resistive heater element and the resistance of the connecting wires.

This resistance prevents large current spikes to occur .

Both the wires and the heater coils have also some inductance which restricts somewhat the rate at which the current rises to it's final value.

The problem with scr/triac circuits is when you switch the current off. The rapid change in current together with the inductances causes voltage spikes to occur (Not current spikes). If the energy which was stored in those inductances is high enough, it can destroy your scr or triac. Thus preventive measures such as snubber circuits or transient suppressurs are often used to prevent the destruction of those devices

Quote from THHuxleynew

So; I've given an answer, with more or less detail, a number of times. You remember that?

No, i don't.

I am fairly new on this forum so don't know what you have been stating in the past.

But I understand that there are a lot of possibilities to introduce possible errors. Some you mention here, other errors which I found myself are not mentioned, but would have had only a minor impact on the outcome of a COP calculation.

Also at least one of your mentioned error's, the bandwidth-limited true power meter. I disagree with since I did a Fourier analyses of the power pulses to calculate the effect of the limited bandwidth of the PCE 830 and can state that it had no influence.

But despite all possible errors I still find it strange that IH did not use it's resources to bring those error sources to light and we all therefore must keep guessing what they are.

Quote from THHuxleynew

First of all Dewey, I am not on a Planet Rossi outward mission. As stated above, I am an engineer and want to base my opinions on data which can be verified.

That is reassuring: so I guess you have never had an opinion that Rossi's devices work? Because there sure is no verified data showing that.

I did a lot of analyses on data available and those analyses shows that Rossi's devices could be working . (that's something else then that they work !)

However I am certainly aware that measurement can be faulty and that data even can be manipulated.

That was the intention of my question, to know how the data was manipulated in order to get a COP of 9.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

LDM - Nice job keeping with the Planet Rossi outward focus mission - never ever never ever ever ever ask any questions about Rossi's explanation for an empty tube that showed a 9X multiple - ever. Now lets ask you some questions - are you concerned about "the secret" getting to the Dupe'salla boys? Turning an empty or stuffed powder tube into a 9X miracle heater is no little feat - you just need right mix of cheap Chinese electronics, the "power supply trick" and some Rossi stagecraft magic. BTW - you're not going to be able to fool the non-Planet Rossians by adding a battery to your circuit this time. We also learned a lot from your "instructions" to Bass. Was he ever able to locate the left-handed smoke sifter - skyhook version?

First of all Dewey, I am not on a Planet Rossi outward mission. As stated above, I am an engineer and want to base my opinions on data which can be verified.

That's why i put my questions and I am sorry to say that you are not giving any answers besides referring to some tricks for which you are not providing any details.

And as far as my "instructions to Bass", I have no idea where you are talking about. Please explain.

It is said that IH discoverd that a COP of 9 was measured while no fuel was in the reactor.
Did IH afterwards analyze how they where misled ?
As an engineer that would be the first thing what I wanted to know in order to have a full understanding of the situation.
IF IH did not do this, why not ? If they did can somebody tell me how they where misled ?

Quote from maryyugo

And of course, Rossi's plenipotentiary "hot cat" which was supposed to make energy from nuclear fusion was not even supplied with ANY sort of forced cooling.

If you do your due diligence and calculate for the physical design of the hot cat the possible convected and radiated power which can be dissipated, then you will see that no forced cooling is necessary for the temperatures reported. That's independent of the fact of the hot cat is working or not.

andrea.s

Quote from andrea.s

Another significant sentence (and hopefully unambiguous) in the conclusions is:

"Use of total emissivity data from literature as suggested by the Lugano report in setting the Optris camera was shown by MFMP to largely

overestimate the temperature. When emissivity of alumina was set to 0.45 i.e. close to the 0.4 figure used in the Lugano report based on

literature data, MFMP obtained a (false) reading of 1524°C versus a 874°C thermocouple reading : with this temperature, apparent COP at

895W input diverges to 4.32 ."

Display More

Thank's for the additional comments and that you consider that I am commenting in good faith.

I will try to digest your report in some more detail one of these days instead of largely restricting myself to the conclusions.

That said, it seems that there are people on this forum who are getting nervous about emissivity discussions starting again.

Quote from andrea.s

LDM you have a way of twisting conclusions.

I appreciated your checking my numbers on the Ferrara report aka TPR1, but you ended up cherry picking a case favorable for Rossi & co and didn't check further (or chose not to comment further).

Again on the MFMP replica of the Lugano dogbone, what I did is check whether the calorimetry based on temperature measurements used by Levi and co worked. The result was: yes, if the temperature is right the MFMP dummy is computed to have a COP below and within 10% of 1.

Of course if the temperature is instead wildly overestimated by using the wrong emissivity (total emissivity in lieu of IR band emissivity, incidentally quite high for Alumina) the apparent COP (of a dummy!) will skyrocket.

How can this suggest a mistake by MFMP, who cross checked thermocouples and pyrometer readings to set the emissivity, rather than a mistake by Levi, who relied on a theoretical (and theoretically flawed) uncalibrated emissivity setting?

Display More

Andrea,

I have no intention to twisting conclusions or cherry pick a case favorable for Rossi.

As yourself I am trying to base my conclusions on calculations rather then opinions.

Reading your report it states :

At 895W input the MFMP dummy reactor or "dogbone", application of the Lugano computation method yields apperent COP=1.66 If measured spectral emissivity (0.95) is used. Even at lower drives to 200W input, COP appears always above 1, which is of course inconsistent with a dummy run.

Maybe I misinterpreted the above sentence, but don't accuse me of trying to cherry pick favorable cases for Rossi.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I was surprised when Levi flat-out refused to consider the (obvious) thermography error - deleting from thought the idea of band emissivity and not responding to pretty basic science. I'd not expect the other Lugano guys to be so unable to rethink errors, except that their behavior as reported by Alan is consistent with them agreeing with Levi the original results were broadly correct. It remains a bit of a mystery to me.

I don't think there was an "obvious" error.

In my opinion the text of the report was shortened, leaving out essential details and intermediate steps they did. This caused many misinterpretations of the report.

I invite you to redo the thermal calculations on the data of the report and you will see that everything lines up very nicely, even the broad band emissivities you can calulate back from the report have the right values.

Also if you look at figure 7 of the report, you will also see that they where quite able to set the proper emissivity on the Optris to get the right temperature reading. If they knew how to set up the Optris properly, they would have done that also for the high temperatures and not changed their method totally.

I hope the MFMP Lugano thermal assessement take 2 will hopefully shed more light on the issue. (Andrea S once calculated that the COP value of the MFMP take 1 measurement had a COP much larger then 1. which indicates a possible measurement error during MFMP take 1)

Quote from Alan Smith

Sorry, I have no idea. Logic might suggest that this is a Rossi system, as well as the presence of a Rossi colleague - but if you read my post on this you know as much as I do.

They are trying to replicate Rossi (At least that's the information I have) . That would imply a Ni-H system.

Quote from Alan Smith

I have no technical information to impart, merely a confirmation that they are working on Ni-H with positive results, passed on in full. As I said that is a material fact, as is the presence of Rossi's colleague. I apologise if it doesn't accord with your weltschmertz, it is as they say 'an inconvenient truth'. I think more will be revealed by summer's end, in the meantime, they are locked down, no visitors no publications.

ETA. No 'inside info' btw, I just emailed and asked

Just as well.

It is my understanding that Fabiani was not working on the core ECAT technology, but designed the electronics for controlling the reaction.

Uppsala hiring Fabiani might thus be an indication that they have indeed something which needs to be controlled.

Wyttenbach

The following graph is showing the magnetic susceptibility of nickel above the Curie temperature. (Curie temperature is at the left vertical line)

Left scale is times 1000.

Since relative permability is the magnetic sucseptibilty plus one, the relative permeability is still relatively high for nickel above the Curie temperature and not going sharply down.

Or are I missing something ?

BobHiggins

Bob, I had the impression from what i remember from some Parkomov tests (But it is only an impression based on limited data, you will probably have more data from Parkhomov) that some of his tests with smaller diameter tubes had lower COP values compared to those with larger diameter tubes.

If his drive was the same, then in the smaller diameter tubes, the magnetic field would have been larger, This would be an indication that magnetic stimulation reduces the COP instead of enhancing it.

Would value your opinion on this.

BobHiggins

Would nickel, being part of the fuel and having relative strong paramagnetic properties above the Curie temperature not have a relative permeability greater then 1 at higher temperatures ?

Quote from Alan Smith

I think you should avoid mixing up 'may present' with 'will present'. Willingness and getting on an aeroplane are (also) two different things.

Alan, Thank's for this lesson about expressing myself in a correct way in the English language.

Quote from Shane D.

IHFB,

Anyways, I see from doc 280 that Levi and team "may present"...in other words, travel to Miami and take the stand for Rossi. If they do, that will be very exciting, and informative. If Levi does so, it will also be interesting to see if IH brings up Fabiani's USQL, with no assets, paying Levi that consulting fee?

Some time ago it was communicated to me by what I consider to be a very reliable source what the major reason was why the Lugano team did not want to further discuss the Lugano report.

I consider that information confidential, so I can't give details.

However that major reason had nothing to do with the general conclusions of the report not being valid.

That might be one of the reasons that Levi maybe testify in court to defend Rossi.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Ha ha yes, those square pistons used by Farrari are top secret

Sorry to say, the US patent really is nothing more than a water heater. I think you should read it with open eyes rather than believe everything your beloved Andrea feeds you. Anyone for tennis

Are you sure the patent is not already used ?

Maybe you should take a close look to your water heater to see if there is not a LENR device hidden in it.

Quote from andrea.s

LDM

You are right on the absolute powers in the spreadsheet. At some point I reduced the step from 1 to 0.5 degrees to have a better resolution and forgot to correct the average formula (for twice the no. of samples). Thanks for spotting that.

This however changes nothing about the key point the spreadsheet wants to make, which is: when inverting a clamp (I1 in my spreadsheet) the power reading is wrong and the apparent COP varies with the conduction interval.

For low regimes it may go down to 1 or less, and when increasing the conduction time (thus average power) it increases arbitrarily. If the current weren't chopped at all, apparent power would be zero, i.e. infinite COP.

I will upload the corrected spreadsheet shortly.

[ETA: uploaded the corrected spreadsheet in .zip format as well hoping formulas are readable that way]

(.ods) https://drive.google.com/open?…ubncFIhCFaNF83OUgzUDcwenM

tpr1_opensource_rev2.zip

Display More

Found some time to make comments on the new spreadsheet as promised.

Don't know what went wrong the first time, but the .ods file was readable. Thanks
First of all, the numbers seem all right now, albeit with a different timing as compared to your first file.
You simulated two situations, one with both clamps in the correct direction and one with the clamp on I1 reversed. In addition to this I calulated also the situation in which I2 was reversed. The results are :

Both clamps correct 132.0 Watt
Clamp I1 reversed 168.4 Watt
Clamp I2 reversed -168.4 Watt

The last situation with a negative power would have resulted in the PCE 820 having displayed an error which would have been noted by the testers. Thus we can discard this situation.
In case of Clamp I1 reversed the testers would have calculated their COP value with a higher input power (164 instead of 132 watt) which would have resulted in a lower calculated COP value.
Thus measuring with a reversed clamp under estimates the COP ! This in contradiction to statements that the COP value would have been over estimated with a reversed clamp.
Was the clamp reversed ? I agree with your analyses that the clamp was probably reversed based on the figures of the currents of I1 and I2 displaying the same polarity signals. Since the PCE 830 was used upstream, Phase 1 was always present and not chopped so that the PCE 830 could trigger in the standard way. In that situation both currents should have shown opposite polarity (Good find !).

My preliminary conclusion is therefore that current clamp I1 was reversed and that this leaded to a too low COP calulated.