Posts by LDM

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

Paradigmnoia

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.

Paradigmnoia

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

Emssivity--------------------------------------------0.392

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.

Forty-Two

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

JedRothwell

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

JedRothwell

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.

THHuxleynew

3 phase current clamp reversal

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

See the following link

https://e-catworld.com/2014/11…-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.

Factory security

Quote from Paradigmnoia

That is a huge discrepancy.

I have sent an email to Cotronics to see if they can supply some more information on the thermal conductivity vs temperature range, and how it was tested.

Thanks for doing that.

Hope they will give an answer

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The Cotronics data sheet shows 1.2 W/mK for pure alumina

35 W/mK sounds rather high. That would be equivalent to the thermal conductivity of Pb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide gives 30 at room temperature.

Some references say it is between 28 and 40

Tabulated values give about 35 at room temperature (see for example http://www-ferp.ucsd.edu/LIB/PROPS/PANOS/al2o3.html )

Indeed about the seame as lead

Quote from Paradigmnoia

LDM ,

Durapot properties link:

www.cotronics.com/vo/cotr/pdf/801.pdf

Not sure about dependence of thermal conductivity on temperature but the overall curve shape is likely similar to pure alumina, offset by the engineered conductivity improvement. That is a guess however.

Display More

The datasheet give a thermal conductivity of 15 BTU-in/hour.F.Ft^2

Converting that value to SI units gives 2.16 W/mK (Using the engineering toolbox converter)

However different sources are giving a value of about 35 W/mk at room temperature for Al2O3

That's a large difference !

Any clue ?

Paradigmnoia

Using steam-engine, the wire twist rate, lead length, coil spacing etc, could be fine-tuned to get a 20 cm coil exactly... 🙂

I had to do that last one from memory, in a few minutes, and didn’t spend much time dialling in the coil size.

BTW, the Rods I found to be a nearly intractable problem (especially with no FEM). There is poor to incomplete information on them, and far too many opinion answers to questions than data answers to questions associated with them for my liking.

As far as the dummy run FEM simulation is concerned I do not know how much of the normal convective and radiated heat of the sides of the caps is absorbed by the rods and how much just disspated in the environment. Otherwise stated : We do not know the percentage which is going to the rods,

Also we need to add the possible heat transfer to the rods by thermal conduction for which the value is also not known.

It thus will be some guess work which part of convective and radiated power goes to the rods and how much will be transferred by convection.

However from the many preliminary simulations I already did I have the impression that an introduced error in assigning the proper powers makes no large difference for the total profile. (except maybe somewhat for the outer points).

So I am optimistic that from the simulation results we can gain some additional knowledge of the dummy run temperature profile.

I am still interested to see if it looks like the 2/3 factor was applied (or not) to the Rods in the Active Runs in the report (even if the method used was flawed anyway), since the numbers reported and the supporting data supplied are not clear on that point.

I wonder if we can ever make any conclusions on that since the data of the active runs is much less detailed then that of the dummy run.

But lets first finish the dummy run and then determine if the FEM model can be used to gain some additional knowledge of the active runs.

If you, or any other interested person has any ideas on what kind of simulation tests we could do for the active runs then let me know and I will see what I can do.

I am progressing with an update of the FEM model. Am also bringing the dimensions of the model more in line with the drawing in the IH patent application.

(But have seen from the many preliminary simulations I already did that internal dimensional changes have marginal effects as long as the outher dimensions and used materials stay the same).

I found that to obtain accurate results it is important to also simulate the temperature dependency of the material properties. (Alumina, Air) instead of using fixed average values. (but average values still do amazing well for a quick evaluation). So I now use a piecewise linear approximation for those temperature dependent physical material properties.

A problem I am having is that Durapot 810 seems to have a higher thermal conductivity then standard alumina and I have no information what the thermal conductivity value and it's temperature dependency is.

So any information on this point would be welcome.

Lugano dummy run thermal FEM simulations - FEM model adaptions-Heater coil update 1

Thanks to the input from Paradigmnoia a preliminary FEM model upgrade will be made to test the effect of a heater coil with 3 x 10 windings.

The test will be to discover if with such a heater coil configuration enough power can be transferred into the rods.

In the calculations below I did not use the steam-engine.org calculator as PARA did, but instead used a spreadsheet to calculate the coil parameters necessary for the FEM model update.

A minor difference with my calculation compared to the data PARA supplied is that my heater coil is 200 mm in length while he calculated for a coil length of 210 mm. (Makes it easier for me to update my current FEM model).

I don't think this will result in a major difference for the prelimary FEM simulations.

Also I will use a coil diameter of 1 cm in calculating the powers to be applied to the different sections.

If we have 3 coils of 10 windings each then my spreadsheet calulations are giving the following data for a coil length of 200 mm and coil diameter of 1 cm

Under the ribs each of the three coils has a wire length of 37.24 cm

Total coil wire length under the ribs 3 x 37.24 = 111.73 cm

Total heating wire length under both end caps 24 cm

Total heating wire lengths in both sets of rods 24 cm

Total heating wire length is then 24 + 24 + 111.73 = 159.73 cm

Power dissipated under the ribs (111.73/159.73) x 480 = 335.76 Watt

Power dissipated under the end caps (24/159.73) x 480 = 72.12 Watt

Power dissipated in the rods (24/159.73) x 480 = 72.12 Watt

Total power in end caps and rods is 72.12 + 72.12 = 144.24 Watt

The total electrical power dissipated in the ECAT is 335.75 + 72.12 = 407.88 Watt

Electrical power dissipated in the rods is 72.12 Watt

Total power dissipated by the rods was calculated in the dummy run recalc as 118.38 watt

So 118.38 - 72.12 = 46.26 Watt into the rods has to come from the ECAT as thermal power.

(46.26 / 2 = 23.13 Watt for each end cap)

This seems already quite feasible and possible much easier to accomplish then my old calculation with 69 turns and 2 cm coil diameter.

So I now have to work on an update of the FEM model and then do some preliminary simulations with the above data to see where we stand.

Paradigmnoia

About 5 cm leads of each of three twisted heater coil wires exit the Caps at both ends of the “reactor”. About 1 cm each is used at the clamp connection to the C2 cables. This leaves about 4 cm each, or 12 cm combined of Kanthal resistance wire inserted into the rods, at each end, heating the Rod ends.

Correct
So for both sides the total length of heating wires in the rods totals 2 x 12 = 24 cm

About 30% of the total heater coil twisted wiring is contained in the Caps and the extensions into the Rods.

We consider two situations

1. Heating coil extends under the end caps

Since the length of the caps totals 80 mm and the total length of the ECAT is 280 mm

80/280 = .285 or close to 30% of the total power is dissipated in the end caps

This amounts to .3 * 480 = 144 watts

Again that is if the heating coils continue within the end caps

To take also into account the length of the heating wires in the rods then we need to calculate with heater wire lengths instead of the section lengths above.

If we assume the heater coil spacing being equal to the rib spacing (69 ribs) and the coil diameter is assumed to be approximate 2 cm, then the total heater wire length under the ribs is 438 cm and the total heater wire length under the end caps 175 cm

Total heater wire length is then 24 + 175 + 438 = 637 cm

Amount of power in the rods is (24/637)x480 = 18 Watt

Total power in the end caps is (175/637)x 480 = 132 Watt

Total power in end caps and rods = 18 + 132 = 150 Watt

2. Heating coil ends at the end caps

In this case there is 2 x 3 x 4 cm = 24 cm of heater wire under the end caps

24 cm is in the rods

438 cm is under the ribs

Total heater wire length in this case is 24 + 24 + 438 = 486 cm

Amount of power in the rods is (24/486)x480 = 23.7 Watt

Total power in the end caps is (24/486)x 480 = 23.7 Watt

Total power in end caps and rods = 23.7 + 23.7 = 47.4 watt Watt

The 47.4 Watt in the rods and the end caps in this case is not enough to supply about 110 Watts measured in the rods

So despite what is shown in figure 2, the heating coils must have continued under the end caps if we have 69 windings of heater coil under the ribs.

Therefore, roughly 30% of the total input power is fed to the combined Caps and Rods, or ~ 15 % into each end, or, 7% into the end of each Rod bundle (but not 100% of that actually goes to the Rods due to the loose fit of the Rods to Caps.

Case 1 (heating coils extend under the end caps)

----We have 100 x (150/480) = 31.25 % in rods and caps

----Of which 100 x (18/480) = 3.75 % in the rods

----And 100 x (132/480) = 27.5 % in the caps

Case 2 (Heating coil ends at the end caps)

----We have 100 x (47.4/480) = 9.88 % in rods and caps

----Of which 100 x (23.7/480) = 4.94 % in the rods

----And 100 x (23.7/480) = 4.94 % in the caps

The glowing twisted wires are quite visible in the Lugano photos. The caption of one photo suggests that the twisted leads are glowing due to conduction from the reactor, which is silly.

Indeed

The wires are glowing orange hot because up to 50 A are passing through them.

Note that the above calculations and the simulations I did are when the coil under the ribs has 69 windings. (Same as the number of ribs)

However figure 2 in your post (Was that from the patent application ?) shows 3 x 9 = 27 windings of the heater coil and that can make a large difference for the calculations.

Wonder if figure 2 is a concept drawing or that the details are also correct

Maybe someone can tell me more from photographs ?

I will anyway also analyze the case with 27 windings and do also a FEM simulation for that situation and see if in that case enough power can be get into the rods. (May take some days)

Thanks for your input ! (And thanks for the many edits so that i was able to refer to figure 2 )

Lugano dummy run thermal FEM simulations - FEM model adaptions-Heater coil

Preparing for new thermal FEM simulation of the Lugano dummy run i did some some preliminary FEM simulations and found the following issues :

1. Heat transfer into the rods

Measuring the total convective and radiated heat transfer of the sides of the caps from some inital FEM simulation runs show that the sides of the caps can not supply enough power into the rods by convection and radiation alone.

Temperature of the end cap at the side will be about the same as the measured end cap temperature closest to the end, or about 320 degree C.

Area of the side of the end cap is pi * 2 x 2 = 12.57 cm^2 or 12.57E-4 m^2

Convective heat transfer coefficient for the vertical wall is 21.28 and the emissivity is 0.790

This gives 15.25 Watt total thermal power for one side, or 30.50 watt total.

From the dummy run recalculation we found a total thermal power of the rods being 118.38 Watt.

This is much more then the convective and radiated heat from the sides can supply.

The conclusion then is that in order to get enough power transferred into the rods, the rods must have been in good physical contact with, maybe even cemented, to the end caps during the Lugano test. This because radiation and convection can not alone supply enough heat into the rods.

2. Heat transfer from heating element to the side of the end cap

Other preliminary thermal FEM simulations showed that if the heating element is only present under the ribbed area, then not enough power can be transferred from the heating element to the outher side of the end cap to supply (by thermal conduction) the power to the rods. This because the thermal conductivity of alumina is too low resulting in a too high thermal resistance between heating element and side of the cap. This limits the maximum possible heat transfer.

The conclusion therefore is that the heating element must have continued in the end caps till (almost) the end of the caps.

In that case the thermal resistance between heating element and side of the end cap becomes much lower.

New FEM simulations showed that if the heating element is extended to the full length of the ECAT, then enough thermal power can be conducted into the rods.

Conclusion is that the heating coils of the Lugano ECAT must have covered the (almost) full length of the ECAT.

The adapted FEM model wil thus have its heating element running over the full length of the ECAT.

Besides the above issues i have done and still am doing quite a lot of FEM simulations in preparation of a new Lugano dummy run simulation, since the physical configuration of the dogbone (core size, depth of the heating element, material specifications ) all have influence on the final temperature profile and I want to make sure that I understand the influence of all.

(It seems that it has not much effect on the average temperatures).

So it still may take some time before I am ready for an FEM rerun.

There has been a lot of talk about deceptions in this thread.

To have some fun I throw in some possible new of mine.

The ECAT "factory" is located in the South-East USA (Not in Florida)

With "factory" is meant a new extension to the current plant of the customer/partner

The added extension is 30 x 90 feet (small compared to the total plant)

With those dimensions one SK27 can as being claimed, heat the "factory"

They installed a state of the art heat exchanger which is capable to test ECATS at very high power levels

The customer/partner is a company operating worldwide and has very large engineering capabilities.

Quote from Alan Smith

I have no idea.

Think about all the different ways you can connect three heating coils to three phases available

(No, you don't have to connect all phases all the time)

And think about what this can do for the magnetic fields.

Also think about the fact that changing the connection configuration between dummy and active run can explain the large resistance drop between dummy and active runs.