Posts by andrea.s

IH Fanboy

20cm×20cmx20cm are 8000 cc = 8 dm^3 (8 liters). If solid steel, they weigh 60kg.

Why is it so weird if Mats' report describes "an object measuring about 30 x 30 x 30 centimeters" and "a layer of about 5 centimeters of shielding" and the fatcat void of water weighed 98 kg ?

Anyway I did not put up a spreadsheet model, I was just providing ballpark figures roughly compatibile with heat storage and release over several hours. No need to refine the analysis unless there are founded objections to feasibility of Ascoli65' s model. I don't think Jed's critique is.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Wait a second. You base 8 dm^3 of steel from what?

Just an example compatibile with 30MJ stored at a emperature in the range of 1000 deg, and 20×20×20 cm fits well in the 30×30×30 cm of the object described by Lewan as a "heat exchanger". But it is just a starting point for a plausibile model. Ascoli's numbers are more deeply thought since he fits both transients and steady state.

@Paradigmnoia

I agree on the good reasons to insulate the core, not for trickery but to reach a desired temperature.

As for specific heat per volume:

Steel density 7.8 kg/l
Steel specific heat 0.47 kJ/kg °C
Water density 1 kg/l
Water specific heat 4.2 kJ/kg °C

Heat capacity of 1 liter = 1 dm^3 of water : 4.2 kJ/°C
Heat capacity of same volume of steel: 0.47×7.8 = 3.7 kJ/°C

Not that far.

8 dm^3 of steel are roughly 60kg (out of the 98kg). With an insulated sleeve 60kg of steel heat up say to 1000°C=1300K with 30MJ.
Then there are infinite combinations of surface , emissivity, thermal conductivities from core to sleeve and exchanger that can delay this 30 MJ heat release to match the 3 hours self-sustaining.

IH Fanboy

It is Ascoli's model (and a clever one) not mine, but it is easy to answer.
It is called reverse engineering. You define a model, set fixed and variable parameters. Graph results with a spreadsheet or math software e.g. matlab, and you tune or optimize the variables unril the graph fits the measurements. If all parameters are physically realizable and consistent with data: bingo, you get a water boiler design with the same performance as the fatcat.

Quote from sifferkoll

...
Ask Peter
...
Thomas published an article in his name challenging the Lugano Report and requested the academics in Uppsala/Bologna to read, consider and comment on it as if it was an academic paper. In that context Thomas CV is certainly essential. Don't you agree?

I can think of a couple of illustrious "Peter" in the LENR field but I am not sure who you mean.

I respectfully disagree.
Thomas published an article on a blog in response to an article (the Lugano report) on a blog (yours I think) also posted without peer review on the UoB archive.
Actually I did the same though I avoided the format of a scientific paper.
Had the Lugano report been published on a peer reviewed journal there would have been refutation papers submitted to the same journals.
All of this happened in the blogosphere so we are each other's peers.

Basing the review on the qualifications of an author is a shortcut for a lazy reviewer who doesn't wish to analyze merit.

Quote from sifferkoll

posting Rossi slander from an university environment could well be part of the job description.

Sifferkoll, it is completely normal that an academic convinced that Rossi is deluded (forget fraud) will do his best to avoid people falling for it, and avoid taxpayers money to be directed to a dead end (replications of devices that never worked), before real evidence is produced. Why do you need to imagine obscure motivations? You post as often as him so you shouldn't use that parameter to judge, unless you admit having oscure motivations yourself.

For example, I disagree with almost everything you post and consider your analyses polluted by the desire to find secret evil motives behind all actions and events. But I don't doubt that you genuinely engage in these analyses with good intentions for mankind, and even think your deplorable attack on T.C. is genuinely led for the better good since you consider him on the devil's payroll. But you are plain wrong. How about apologizing and restarting a debate on merit rather than identities and qualifications.

@ IH Fanboy
The links at the bottom of the Ny.teknik article still work.

Concerning correlation to switch-off of H2, don't you think the demo was rehearsed several times before?

The core temperature I suppose is computed given the input power, the assumed thermal capacities, thermal conductivities and convection. Lots of assumptions but if they are credible, the claims fall until the assumptions are ruled out by evidence.

IH Fanboy, Ascoli65,

If I may, one may simply say that as long as the exchangers A and B are still hotter than the boiling temperature of water at 2 bar, this will remain at 120°C, regardless of the temperature slope of A and B. Afterwards, it will follow that slope.

The mass budget and thermal capacities assumed by Ascoli65 are all very reasonable. Let me add that that they do not need to be exact. We have a closed box with some data: if there exists a good explanation with known physics for its behavior, one should believe this explanation as much more likely than a dream of unexplained nuclear reactions. The burden is on the one who claims the results to rule out the "normal physics" explanation.

@Ascoli65

"..the inadequate choice of water flow gives you the certainty that its scope was to mask the true results."

That is unpolite: it is called "COP optimization".

I read the discussion of last April on Mats Lewan's blog and indeed I see Ascoli65 mentioned the misplaced thermocouple as an obvious error source.. so little or no value added by my post "Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test". Didn't replicate calculations but they look very credible.
Actually the argument of explaining thermal profiles with a "selfsustaining reaction" when thermal inertia is instead an obvious explanation, is also present in the hotcat TPR1 in the section "remarks on the test" addressing the so called selfsustaining mode.
In that case I could almost perfectly mimic the temperature graphs judged "anomalous" by the authors, by modeling the reactor with a hot core "loosely coupled" to the external steel cylinder and adjusting the thermal conductance in between. All was needed was thermal inertia.

Quote from Ascoli65

So, I presume it is the right interpretation of the results obtained in the October 6 test.
If you, or anyone else, have any technical objection about this model, please let me know, posting your comments in the forum already opened for this purpose (1).

I have not taken the time to analyze your computation, but I will mention what most concerns me about this test, and I am sure I am not the first to raise this concern so apologies for posting old news. First of all, as [edit] Thomas Clarke outlined in "Mats Lewan's Test Report", the choice of a rather high water flow on the secondary circuit of the heat exchanger makes the computation very sensitive vs temperature of the second thermocouple.
Now the position of this thermocouple is right on the outlet of a piece of tubing that is a single block with the hot vapor inlet. On top of that, it is covered by foil wrapping. There is no reason to keep the thermocouple so close to the heat exchanger, since it is very easy to insulate water at 31°C from the 25°C environment: It could have been placed some 20 cm away adding a metal joint after a short rubber hose. By placing it in close proximity of the heat exchanger one cannot trust the temperature to really match the temperature of water without a weighted contribution of the hot casing.

[Edit: I read the discussion of last April on Mats Lewan's blog and indeed I see Ascoli65 mentioned the misplaced thermocouple as an obvious error source.. so little or no value added by my post. Didn't replicate calculations but they look very credible.
Actually the argument of explaining thermal profiles with a "selfsustaining reaction", when thermal inertia is instead an obvious explanation, is also present in the hotcat TPR1 in the section "remarks on the test" addressing the so called selfsustaining mode.
In that case I could almost perfectly mimic the temperature graphs judged "anomalous" by the authors, by modeling the reactor with a hot core "loosely coupled" to the external steel cylinder and adjusting the thermal conductance in between. All was needed was thermal inertia.

Quote from randombit0

Paradigmoia this is NOT even english. And BTW, Alumina has maximum emissivity in a "long" (compared to the peak of black body spectrum) wave range not short ! But this does not change nothing about ...

Between us Italians.. please "English" requires a capital E, and please replace "nothing" with "anything", unless you agree that it does change a lot.

And maximum emissivity of alumina is right at the peak of black body spectrum. I attach a summary of the basic data.

Emissivity data reference:
Olivier Rozenbaum, Domingos De Sousa Meneses, Patrick Echegut.
"Texture and Porosity Effects on the Thermal Radiative Behavior of Alumina Ceramics."
International Journal of Thermophysics, Springer Verlag (Germany),
2009, 30 (2), pp.580-590.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word...

"If andrea is GSVIT"

I am not a member but I like them and happened to meet one of the members. I did act as peer reviewer on their post on emissivity before publication. I had posted my note a couple of weeks before, but theirs was far more complete and documented.

Quote from randombit0

WOW Mr Clarke You and just YOU have understood the reality !
As far as I remember, my lovely Thomas, members from three universities have participated to the test.
But ONLY YOU knows how things are !

Actually, there are many people who agree with Thomas Clarke that the Lugano test is invalidated by erroneous use of total emissivity in settings of an IR camera, in lieu of a proper calibration. I personally wrote the same independently, few days after seeing MFMP's live test with a dogbone dummy replica.The right way would have been to set experimentally a (band) emissivity to match a thermocouple reading. If for exceptional reasons this could not be done, the authors should have used IR band emissivity data (by the way plenty of data is available in the same handbook they got total emissivity from).

Had they done so, COP computation would have been close to 1.
In reverse, I computed that MFMP's dummy would have yielded COP >4 had they set the camera on the basis of total emissivity as done in Lugano!

Hi Rigel,

I will take a deep breath and reply politely to your attack, because you are probably hurt personally by people ridiculing efforts in the field of LENR, which affects your sense of humour.

You see, at the time when I read the Lugano report I was pissed off for having given some initial credit (at least a suspension of judgement) to this Rossi story. After many months of criticism of the first report (TPR1) to which no response came from the authors, they released this unacceptable paper, and again refused (in spite of initial announcements) to reply to criticism. All replies came from Rossi, which is in contradictIon with the intended third party verification of the claims. So this explains my hostility to this group, expressed lightheartedly because we are in the blogosphere, which is never to be taken too seriously.

The risk is that LENR research will be ridiculed by this story: rigour is what you need in front of skepticism, and skepticism is what you need in front of disruptive scientific claims.

My smug ass is usually up and running on other technology topics but I keep an eye on LENR with (believe me) an open mind. Oh, and my donkey cap is what I privately promised Rossi to wear when publicly apologizing in case his claims are proven true.

Warm Regards,

Andrea

Dewey, not that I think JM Products has anything to do with them, but Johnson Matthey is a giant.
http://www.matthey.com

When Rossi declared that hydrogen was captured and released by a puck (whereas a hydrogen bottle was initially used) he may have referred to their hydrogen getter technology.
http://www.jmprotech.com/prote…absorbent-johnson-matthey
And I have no idea where the rumor came from that "the Customer" used the steam for producing sponge metal catalysts, but Johnson Matthey Process Tecnologies does produce those. http://www.jmprotech.com/sponge-metal-johnson-matthey

Of course hinting at Johnson Matthey by naming the company JM Products is a great idea and triggered a lot of speculation by Rossi fans.

It takes very little to feed hopes in internet's virtual world. A while ago I faked a SiC resistor datasheet as a little joke to back Rossi's explanation for the weird electrical data in the Lugano report, and dispersed little fake traces (manufacturer based in NC etc): it was quite a success.. I received a remarkable number of inquiries on SiC Industries' fake email address, and I could have made a fortune selling those coils.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014…matches-data-from-report/

For once I must agree with Randombit0. Why argue on oxygen if we are discussing the Lugano test? If the excess heat were true it could not be explained by an exothermic reactIon, not for 32 days. Energy is way off in the Ragone plot even if oxygen comes from the environment.

The problem with Lugano is that there is no (proof of) excess heat.

On the other hand if we are discussing runaway reactions as Alan Smith described, then yes this is pertinent, though information is lacking.

Alan Smith

Is thre a link to an online report of what you are describing? You say the reactor had a steel fuel tube wrapped in allumina, but was there an electrical heater? Would this be a coil wrapped around the steel tube within the alumina coating?

Before someone finds out, I confess that during my professional life I worked on projects having Lockheed Martin as customer. So when I spread lies about the Lugano calorimetry or the TPR1 input power, everybody bear in mind my conflict of interest re the Compact Fusion reactor...