Requirements of H-Ni LENR Devices and Their Implications on the Lugano Test

The following guest post was submitted by Michael Lammert. 

Requirements of H-Ni LENR Devices and Their Implications on the Lugano Test

by Michael Lammert (AKA Dr. Mike)

October 31, 2014

I’ve continued to think about the results of the Lugano test and Rossi’s E-Cat devices. Two questions that I’ve been considering are: What factors are required to produce an optimum H-Ni LENR device (ala Rossi’s E-Cat) and are the active “consumption” powers in the Lugano test reasonable and correct?

As I see it, key requirements for a useful E-Cat type device include:

  1. Ability to generate enough heat within the Ni powder to produce a useful output.
  2. Ability to control the low energy nuclear reactions sufficiently to provide stable operation without thermal runaway.
  3. Ability to deliver the heat to a load upon demand.
  4. Ability to dissipate the heat from the Ni to its surroundings fast enough to prevent the Ni from melting.

Although we don’t know yet what exact combination of Ni powder, hydrogen, catalysts, and electromagnetic pulses are needed to produce a working LENR device, there doesn’t appear to be any question that an E-cat device can produce sufficient heat to be useful. Not only is Rossi currently working hard to get his 1 MW plant installed, others have independently demonstrated useful heat from LENR devices.

The control of an LENR device for stable operation is going to be a difficult, but not impossible task, at least until the theory of operation is well understood. The ability to deliver heat to a load upon demand should just be a straight forward engineering problem, except for the control function. Therefore, both items #2 and #3 will benefit greatly when a solid theory of LENR is established.

I believe that getting the heat generated in the Ni dissipated to its surroundings will be the primary limiting factor for how much power can be generated from a given size device. Ni has a specific heat of 0.44J/gr/oK, which means that 0.44 Joules of energy will raise the temperature of 1 gram of thermally isolated Ni by 1 oK. It would only take about 520 Joules (1 Joule = 1W-sec) to raise that 1 gram of thermally isolated Ni from room temperature to its melting point (0.44*(1455-273) = 520). Luckily the Ni powder in the E-Cats is not thermally isolated. In the Hot-Cat, the Ni is in contact with both other Ni particles and the alumina reactor. Both Ni and alumina have reasonable thermal conductivities (91 and 30 W/m/oK, respectively). The Ni will also radiate heat proportionally to T4, and also have heat transferred via convection to the mostly hydrogen gas within the reactor. (Although there is no data on what the partial pressure of hydrogen is during operation, cooling through transfer of energy to the hydrogen might be made somewhat more effective by removing most of the air within the reactor prior to start-up since hydrogen has about a 7 times higher heat conductivity than air.)

How fast can heat be dissipated from the Ni powder through conduction, radiation and convection? For the answer to this question I would request a thermal engineer to make a calculation based on assumptions that are appropriate to the operating conditions of the Hot-Cat. The closest electrical analogy that I found to this thermal dissipation problem is data on the internet for temperature vs. current data for NiCr 60 wire (60%Ni). A 1 gram piece of 18 gauge (1 mm diameter) NiCr 60 wire would be about 15.5cm long and have a high temperature resistance of about 0.24 ohms. The NiCr would melt at a current of about 33 amps or at a power of about 260W (332*.024). (This is for a straight wire in air.)   I would expect a gram of Ni powder sitting on alumina in a hydrogen environment to have a somewhat higher maximum dissipation power than the 260W for a piece of NiCr wire. However, if the Ni was clumped in a pile, it might be expected to melt at even a lower power level than the 260W. The solution to the dissipation problem is to add more Ni powder, distribute the powder in a uniform layer over the entire reactor internal surface, and run the reactor at a lower power generation rate per gram of Ni powder.

Now let’s look at the numbers from the Lugano test. It was claimed that 0.55 grams of Ni was used in the reactor with average output powers of about 1660W for the first part of the run and about 2320W for the second part. Assuming all of this excess power is generated uniformly in the 0.55 grams of Ni powder, dissipation in the Ni would have to be 3018W/gr in the first run and 4018W/gr in the second portion. Although I will wait to see a calculation of the maximum possible dissipation per gram of Ni powder from a thermal engineer before making a final conclusion, I believe these dissipation numbers are about an order of magnitude too high for the 0.55 gram of Ni powder not to melt.

If it is assumed that it is not probable that the measured excess power seen in the Lugano test could have come from heat generation in the small amount of Ni, where did the heat generation come from? In my previous post I pointed out the problem with the “Joule heating” calculations, reprinted here:

  1. Problem with the “Joule Heating” Calculation

         The “Joule heating” calculation for the Cu wire for the dummy run on pages 13-14 seems to be fairly straight forward. The “Joule heating” is simply the resistance of the wire times the current squared flowing through that wire. Sum the Joule heating in the 3 Cu wires from the controller and the 6 Cu wires to the device and you have the power that comes out of controller, but doesn’t participate in heating the Inconel coils. This is such a simple calculation, that it seems unlikely that an error would be made in other calculations of Joule heating. However, the “Joule heating” in the Cu wires for the active run has been calculated in Table 7, page 22 as about 37W for the input power at 800W and about 42W for the operation at 920W. These “Joule heating” calculations imply that the current in the Cu wires was 2.35 times as high in the 800W active run as it was in the dummy run (SQRT(37/6.7) = 2.35). The only way for this to be possible is for the Inconel resistors to have a very large negative temperature coefficient of resistance. Although the report did not specify what type of Inconel was used in the coils, the data sheets for various Inconels show well less than 10% variation in resistivity over a wide temperature range. For example, Inconel 625 has a resistivity of 135.9 micro-ohm-cm at 427 oC and 133.9 micro-ohm-cm at 1093 oC. Other Inconels have a slightly increasing resistivity as the temperature increases. Also it should be pointed out that if the Inconel used in the coils in this experiment had a large negative TCR, then the Joule heating as calculated in Table 7 would have been much higher than 42W for the 900W portion of the test. The calculated “Joule heating” powers are directly proportional to the “consumption” powers, indicating no change in resistivity of the Inconel coils as the temperature increases from about 1260 oC to 1400 oC in the two portions of the active runs. Questions for the authors: 1. What is the source of the error in the “Joule heating” calculation for the active run?   2. What type of Inconel was used in the resistor coils? 3. What was the current flowing through the resistors for each of the active power levels?

 

In re-reading the Lugano report I found that the authors actually answered my third question on the current levels on the active power: On page 3 they say that the potentiometer on the TRIAC power regulator was used to set the operating point, “normally 40-50 Amps”. Using the data in Table 7, page 22 for the Joule heating numbers, the average current for File #2 can be calculated as I2 = 19.5* SQRT(36.98/6.7) = 45.81A (where 19.5 is the current in the dummy run and 6.7 is the Joule heating in the dummy run), and the average current for File #7 can be calculated as I7 = 19.5* SQRT(42.18/6.7) = 48.93A. Indeed both of these currents are within the 40-50A range quoted by the authors on page 3. Since the resistance of the Inconel coils is known to change by less than +/- 5% over the operating temperature range (look this up if you don’t believe it) the input power for the active runs will equal to the dummy power times the ratio of the Joule heating powers. For File #2 the actual power supplied by the TRIAC regulator (“consumption” power in Table 7) is P2= 486*36.98/6.7 = 2682W (+/-5%) (486 is the power for the dummy run), and for File #7 the actual power supplied by the TRIAC regulator is P7 = 486*42.18/6.7 =3060W (+/-5%). (The “Joule heating” powers must be subtracted from these values to get the actual power delivered to the Inconel wire resistors.) Using these calculated “consumption” powers results in File #2 having a net power production of -217W with a COP of .918 and File #7 having a net power production of 180W with a COP of 1.06. If these numbers are correct, one can see that the power output due to the LENR effect is in the noise of the measurement technique. However, the analysis of the “fuel” and the “ash” clearly show that nuclear reactions took place within the reactor during the active runs, but perhaps at a power level in the low 100’s of Watts.

My speculation as to a possible source of an error in the set-up is that the connection of the power source supplying the “specific electromagnetic pulses” mentioned on page 1 of the report is somehow interfering with getting an accurate power measurement from the PCE 830 meter on the output of the TRIAC power regulator. There is no electrical diagram showing how this power source is wired to the reactor and the TRIAC power regulator, and the authors did not state whether this power supply was turned on during the dummy run. I would further speculate that the authors measured the higher current and relatively low power during the active runs and assumed that Inconel resistor coils just had a large negative temperature coefficient of resistance. (This is what I assumed until I looked up the TCR for the various types of Inconel.)

It would certainly be disappointing if the results of the Lugano test are clouded by an “instrumentation” error; however, it wouldn’t be the first time and won’t be the last time that the measurement technique caused an error in reported scientific results. In 2011 the scientists working on the OPERA project at Italy’s INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory reported that they had measured neutrinos that were traveling slightly faster than the speed of light. It took about 6 months with help from scientists outside their laboratory to finally confirm that they had an error in their measurement technique.

Recommendations

   My recommendations to the Lugano authors and others working on E-Cat experiments are as follows:

  1. Have a thermal engineer estimate the maximum power dissipation rate for 1 gram of Ni in the Hot-Cat reactor based on assumptions that match the operating conditions for the Lugano test.
  2. Have the electrical set-up of the Lugano test reviewed by an electrical engineer to determine if the power source supplying the “specific electromagnetic pulses” could have interfered with making an accurate power measurement during the active runs.
  3. Re-examine the radial uniformity of the reactor temperature data. If the Ni powder was mostly at the bottom of the reactor, I would expect to see at least a 100 oC temperature difference between the bottom of the reactor and the top of the reactor (needs verified by a thermal engineer’s calculation). If the radial temperature uniformity is about the same in the active runs as the dummy run, then there is a good chance that most of the observed output power is coming from input power to the Inconel coils, not from LENR in the Ni powder.
  4. For future Hot-Cat experiments it might be beneficial to supply the “specific electromagnetic pulses” via a fourth coil wound on the reactor.
  5. The MFMP group would have a much higher chance of success if they tried to duplicate the original E-Cat, rather than the Hot-Cat. If they decide to go ahead and build a copy of the Hot-Cat, they should probably follow my recommendation #4 above and load the reactor with a minimum of 5-10 grams of “fuel”.

Michael Lammert.

  • Dr. Mike

    fact police,
    Thanks for the correction- these calculations are outside my field of knowledge. What mechanisms did you assume for the conversion of the Ni isotopes to Ni62 Would we need a solid theory to really know the mechanisms? Finally, using your mechanisms, how much total energy should the reactor have produced form converting all 0.55 grams of Ni to Ni62? Note: even though the ash sample size was really small, the conversion of the Ni to Ni62 was confirmed by two measurement techniques.
    Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    DickeFix,
    For your #1 the authors will have to claim that the heating coil resistance dropped by a factor of 3 for the first part of the active run. This is a good answer, but they need to tell us how this happened. They also need to tell us why the resistance of the coils did not change further when when the power was increased a the 10 day point in the active test. Maybe they will have a good theory for the resistance drop, and maybe not. (Of course, they may find that they made an error in the active power measurements.)
    For #2- If the current was 5.7A and the power 2,477W, the resistance was R= P/I^2 = 76.2 ohms. The resistance of each heating coil used in Lugano is only about 1.24 ohms. The TRIAC power controller reduces the RMS line voltage to the level required to supply the heater coils with the current required to produce a particular power.
    Dr. Mike

  • Thomas Clarke

    @alain,

    I’ll highlight where we disagree as a set of comments on your arguments

    >First the dummy was tested normally, and all was right.
    >the COP was about1 and thus emissivity estimated at 0.7 was right
    >the two powermeter were well wired and the two clamps were not inverted.

    Correct.

    > for the second run, with powder, one clamp on the front power meter, and one in
    > the middle powermeter were inverted.[/quote]

    We have no evidence that the testers used two power meters for the active test. If they did, and cross-checked data, then yes, two clamps were reversed.

    > this led to an apparent COP of 3, because 2.7kWwas looking as 900W
    > the problem is that there is still 33% of error, 33% more heat than measured
    > note also that with time COP increase.

    That is not true. In the 1250C test – the first part of the active data – the COP – once the Joule heating is corrected – comes out at almost exactly 3. For the second part (1400C) the COP comes out as 20% higher than 3. The discrepancy is well within experiment berrors, mainly the assumption about Al2O3 emissivity. That is highly variable with temperature, frequency, and Al2O3 microstructure. The researchers use a single value from a reference and ignore transparency. A 20% error in this calculation is about what you would expect.

    > note also that from 800W to 900W the apparent power increase much more tha linearily…

    The error in the optical measurement relates to frequencies at which the Al2O3 is transparent. These increase more than linearly with temperature. So this is expected.

    > this mean that IR cam have wrong emissivity… but since it was 0.7, correctly
    > measured on the dummy at 450C, and since only twice the power is produced
    > if COP=1 , to show a similar effect as 1400C the emissivity have to be very low.

    I don’t understand this argment. We have a 20% error in power which would surely correspond to a 20% change in effective luminosity? So the real luminosity would need to be 0.4*1.2=0.48.

    > The lack of calibration at high temperature let doubt on such an effect
    > but not to a point that COP=1 is possible…

    The numbers above don’t seem to bear this out

    > strangely the box behave as if it was consuming energy as written on the box…

    I’m not sure in what way this is relevant?

    > strangely the reactor don’t behave like a triphase load but as a
    > single phase load driven by a triphase dimmer.

    I must disagree with that. The only difference between the two cases is the delta configuration of resistors. those are clearly present from the wiring, and measured by the testers. But in any case I do not see the relevance.

    > note also that none of the testers detect the problem on any of
    > the 2 powermeter, and that Industrial Heat have provided a reactor
    > that is broken, hoping for such a mistake…

    I note the lack of cross-checking from the testers. Clearly they did not do this or they would have noticed the Joule heating/input power discrepancy.

    Presumably IH tests this reactor in the same manner and observes the same apparent COP?

    > this is why I call that a conspiracy theory.

    You need Rossi involved and no-one else, if they believe him. He is CTO IH. Who would contradict his reading of power meters – it is not obvious?

    > anyway the test is incomplete, not on the electric side, but on the
    > calorimetry side by lack of high temp calibration, ruling out very low
    > emissivity at top temperature. depending on litterature to estimate
    > alumina emissivity is not enough.

    That is true, and introduces an unknown extra error. The X3 issue is different, it is a known error.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      on the transparency the affair is closed since the alumina is opaque at the considered wavelength

      there was 2 powermeter

      anyway you assume that industrial heat sent a broken reactor hoping such a stupid error would be done, while most of the time they were not present.

      forget it.

      at worst there is a minor error in the report about some losses estimations, and sure an error in not calibrating at high temperature.
      Anyway the most probable is that critics are based on error and false assumptions.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Let us hope they mean RMS – but it is likely – this is what the PCE-830 will give.

    The 40-50A is not a clearly measured figure but you are right – it is consistent with the current they use for the Joule wire heating figures, which is mesured precisely, and shows COP 1.

    The waveforms they use are triac switched with a low duty cycle. That means the RMS voltage is less then the mains voltage by a factor of very roughly the duty cycle. That accounts for the difference.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    It is time to add up all the crazy conspiracy claims about lugano test, to defend the COP=1

    First the dummy was tested normally, and all was right.
    the COP was about1 and thus emissivity estimated at 0.7 was right
    the two powermeter were well wired and the two clamps were not inverted.

    then there is the electric conpiracy theory.

    for the second run, with powder, one clamp on the front power meter, and one in the middle powermeter were inverted.
    this led to an apparent COP of 3, because 2.7kWwas looking as 900W
    the problem is that there is still 33% of error, 33% more heat than measured
    note also that with time COP increase.

    note also that from 800W to 900W the apparent power increase much more tha linearily…

    this mean that IR cam have wrong emissivity… but since it was 0.7, correctly measured on the dummy at 450C, and since only twice the power is produced if COP=1 , to show a similar effect as 1400C the emissivity have to be very low.
    The lack of calibration at high temperature let doubt on such an effect but not to a point that COP=1 is possible…

    strangely the box behave as if it was consuming energy as written on the box…

    strangely the reactor don’t behave like a triphase load but as a single phase load driven by a triphase dimmer.

    note also that none of the testers detect the problem on any of the 2 powermeter, and that Industrial Heat have provided a reactor that is broken, hoping for such a mistake…

    this is why I call that a conspiracy theory.

    anyway the test is incomplete, not on the electric side, but on the calorimetry side by lack of high temp calibration, ruling out very low emissivity at top temperature.
    depending on litterature to estimate alumina emissivity is not enough.

    • AlbertNN

      We do not know if they disconnected the measurement equipment between the dummy run and the real one. Wo do not either know if the dummy run was done with two or three active phases. We do not know if they compared the power readings of the two power meters during the active run. We do know that one of the meters at one point gave an OL reading, and thus did not give any measurements to compare with at all.

  • Dr. Mike

    DickeFix,
    I got a chance to read it more carefully. The theory seems to be applicable to the original E-Cat, but I didn’t see anything in the theory that could explain the Lugano “ash” results with no Cu being found. The one good thing that I saw in the theory is that it gives a means of overcoming the Coulomb barrier. Perhaps the understanding of the Coulomb barrier has been advanced.
    Dr. Mike

  • Mark Szl

    Here is another theory of what happened. The Internal Conflict Theory.

    Rossi did not want to let information about his IP to leak out. He placed a sample of diluted or different powder which still did work, not nearly as well as what his IP was based on but did work well enough for the test. This would also temporarily mislead other until IH was ready to go to market.

    The scientists testing found out! Ayayayaya!

    As payback they would teach IH/Rossi a lesson by connecting the clamp in reverse and generating more COP than expected by IH/Rossi.

    The full report was then released by “accident.” Ooopsy!!

    That caused all kinds of concerns because of undisclosed information and anomalous results beyond what people expected in both camps.

    This now would force IH/Rossi to hand over the real goods and let scientists do the test over like originally planned.

    And everyone lived happily ever after.

    • Dr. Mike

      Mark,
      I hope you are joking! Let me ask you and others this question. Why does the original E-Cat need to be shielded, but the Hot Cat used in Lugano not require shielding? One could assume that Rossi has determined this experimentally., but this would mean he knows the reactions in the Hot-Cat are different from the original E-Cat. Why was he surprised the the “ash” analysis?
      Dr. Mike

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      and rossi is a good prestidigitator able to swap sample in front of observers…
      He’d make money at las vegas.

      I call that extraordinary claim.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    Very balanced and very relevant!
    Dr. Mike

  • Thomas Clarke

    it seems my balanced and relevant reply to donk970 has been moderated away? Or is this some strange bug of the site that posts vanish?

    • ecatworld

      Thomas, I just found your post in the moderation queue and approved it. I hope it stays that way — sometimes for reasons unknown to me, posts get unapproved after approval.

  • Donk970

    We have two distinct groups of people talking about the Lugano test. One group believes the observations are real and wants to understand why. The other group fundamentally believes that the observations cannot be real and wants to know how the incorrect observations were produced. The problem for the second group is that they require ever more convoluted explanations that involve both truly gross incompetence on the part of the testers and truly brilliant and sustained deception on Rossi’s part. The idea that Rossi could maintain this level of deception while working closely with engineers and scientists at IH for several years is absurd. This means that either everyone at IH is in on the deception or there is no deception. A conspiracy that involves more than one person is bound to be discovered in short order so the only conclusion I can come to is that there is no deception. I also find it highly unlikely that the testers were so incompetent that they would miss something obvious like an inverted current clamp. What I see here is a group of people who have gone down a rabbit hole of speculation about errors in testing that could lead to virtually any conclusion because none of the people doing the speculating was actually in the lab when the tests were done. My feeling is that all those who are convinced that the test was so badly done that it reported a COP of 3+ instead of 1 need to set up a test rig to show how a dummy reactor could be made to show a COP of 3+ without the testers being aware of the error.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      I agree, but the most crazy is that meanwhile serious LENr scientists agree that the calorimetry is inconcusive because of inssuficient calibration, and too much dependence on theory and assumption.

      sure something is working, but we cannot shut up deniers with such an imprcise test.

      I hope the testers can gather data in their test to clear the question of COP=1 or not…

      for COP>3 a new test is needed I fear.

      • Obvious

        If the COP is shown to be 1, then the isotope change process consumes no power.

        • Dr. Mike

          Obvious,
          The isotope change process could easily be contributing some power, but perhaps that power level is in the noise of the total power. When the COP is claimed to be 1, it is really 1 +/- the measurement error.
          Dr. Mike

          • Obvious

            OK.
            The isotope change process is so energy neutral, that it is within the range of error of the heat measurement of a large resistor, should the COP of the Lugano test unit be shown to be 1, within the range of error of power measurement, and making certain assumptions about the measurement of power, which may or may not be correct.
            LOL

            • Dr. Mike

              Obvious,
              Let’s wait for the revision of the report to see if the authors need to revise their COP calculation. Sometime in the future when we have both the corrected report and a solid LENR theory we will have (at least we better have) a good explanation for the Lugano results.
              Dr. Mike

              • Obvious

                I check for a newer, appended or modified version every day.

    • Dr. Mike

      Donk970,
      I certainly believe you are correct that we have two distinct groups of people talking about the Lugano test, however, I believe you are mistaken about how you categorize those two groups. I believe there is one group that is examining the data from the Lugano test carefully, seeing an inconsistency, and asking why. The second group wants to believe the final results of the Lugano test, but really don’t feel they need to ask why or understand how the results were achieved (or maybe feel they don’t have the background to understand the results). (There are others that really don’t fit into either of these groups.)
      I believe that most of the electrical engineers that read the Lugano report carefully, looked at the data in Table 7 on page 22 and asked themselves why wasn’t the Joule heating in the Cu wires about 11W for the first 5 files and about 12.5W for Files #6-16 (that is, directly proportional to the reported supplied powers)? The Lugano authors showed us they know how to calculate Joule heating with the calculations for the dummy run shown on pages 13-14. Either the reported power “consumption” is incorrect or the second time the Joule heating was calculated, it was done incorrectly in the Table 7 data. (This data would have also fit if the heater wire had a large negative temperature coefficient of resistance, however, not only does Inconel wire not have this property, the data from the report shows the resistance not to change when the active run temperature was increased from 1260C to 1400C.)
      So the issue is not whether some people believe or don’t believe in observations made by the Lugano authors, the issue is why the supplied power data is not consistent with the Joule heating data in Table 7. Why are several electrical engineers suggesting that one of the current clamps may have been reversed? Because if one clamp had been reversed, then you would expect to see the numbers presented in Table 7 for for the power “consumption” and the “Joule heating”. Their theory is a good fit to the data. There easily can be another explanation for the data presented in Table 7. We just need to get that explanation from the authors and verify that their explanation also fits the data presented, or maybe the authors will determine there is an error in Table 7, and they will correct that error.
      I believe that most of those people that are pointing out the error in the Table 7 data are actually good supporters of Rossi and his efforts to advance LENR.
      Dr. Mike

  • GreenWin

    While there is a ton of speculation and demands to know more about details of the Lugano test, I would remind all that Industrial Heat has invested in a commercial venture. Its value is dependant on commercial performance, NOT meeting scientific method. Expecting either the authors or IH to release proprietary information prior to achieving their commercial goals is wishful thinking. Scientists have had their opportunities since P&F — and they’ve blown it.

    • Thomas Clarke

      If the report is correct then proprietary information – the fuel composition – has been released? In fact it is difficult to see what has not been released about the hot-cat design.

      I think what people expected (because that was the purpose) was a black box test that would validate the technology. No details of the technology were required.

      The details asked for now relate to the testing, not the technology

    • Donk970

      I couldn’t agree more. At the end of the day, no matter how much people want LENR to be true (or not true), all that will really matter is wether or not a commercial product works and ships to the customer. The only people who need convincing is the board of directors and investors in IH and so far they appear to be convinced.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    I believe you are correct that Rossi’s patent application is not going to provide protection for a Hot-Cat design device. I don’t think Rossi had a good enough theory when the patent was applied for to write up a good all-encompassing patent. Also, I don’t see how he thought he could get a patent without disclosing the entire invention, including the catalyst. I agree that there is probably enough disclosed in the Lugano repiort on the Hot-Cat design and fuel to make it non-patentable. Your question is a good one!
    Dr. Mike

  • Oystein Lande

    DickeFix:

    Possible answers to your questions:

    “1.An explanation how nuclear reactions can occur at low temperature”

    This is what has haunted the Cold Fusion / LENR science since it all started in 1989. Many theories from many nuclear scientists have been proposed. Any Rossi suggested theory, will be just that – a theory until other have confirmed the theory by experiments and measurements.

    “2. An explanation how nuclear reactions can occur without any radiation”

    Yet another issue that haunted the Cold Fusion / LENR science since it all started in 1989. Many theories from many nuclear scientists have been proposed. Any Rossi suggested theory, will be just that – a theory until other have confirmed the theory by experiments and measurements.

    “3. An explanation how all Ni isotopes and most other metals in the fuel can be converted to almost pure Ni62 in the ash”

    The ASH analysis is based on a sample representing 0,2% of total ASH weight. In my opinion we cannot base any types of conclusions on a 0,2% sample.
    Other than that “this 0,2% sample show high concentration of 62Ni.” Most likely this is NOT representative of the total. We may speculate that there has been some separation happening at 1400 degC.

    “4.An explanation why the generated power didn´t decrease with time despite the fuel was almost burnt out at the end”

    Concluding that the whole ASH sample had turned to Ni62 based on a 0,2% weight sample, is way too much of a assumption.

    “5. An explanation why the fuel consisted of natural Ni while Rossi repeatedly stated that enriched Ni-62 was an essential ingredient in the fuel”

    Did he? Why not ask Rossi on JONP

    “6. An explanation for the completely different ash compositions in ITP test 1 and 2”

    Comparing analysis based on 0,2% weight sample is not very scientific. But in this case also answers to question 1 & 2 apply.

    “7. An explanation why the electrical Joule heating increased 6 times when the stated input power only increased 2 times (Giancarlo)”

    This is strange. It seems there is a calculation error. Both in dummy and In real test. Could one have a larger calculation error? ANYHOW: In addition to the PCE’s they could also get data acquisition from the control box used from Control Concepts. That one would definitely tell them delivered power. They would be able to do diagnostics, charting, do logging with the control box hooked up to a PC. Hope they did…

    “8. An explanation of the unexpected measured current shapes which indicate a reversed current clamp (Andrea S.)”

    The picture shows OL all over. Probably not hooked up when picture was taken. But having two positive spikes followed by two negative spikes is possible in a three phase with angle control.

    “9. An explanation why the Ni didn´t melt if the power was generated by a reaction in the fuel (Dr. Mike)”

    This is one of the best questions I have seen. The 1 gram powder must have been distributed very evenly on the internal surface to achieve good heat exchange and not melt….

    “10. An explanation why the E-Cat gave COP=1 when SP Technical Research Institute
    (the swedish measurement calibration authority) tested it.”

    Not sure what this is related to.

    My own thoughts on the Ni-H LENR matter:

    My interest in Rossi is based upon what was done by Professor Sergio Focardi
    in the early 1990’s at the University of Bologna.

    He did nickel-hydrogen reactor experiments,and got Heat out larger than what could be explained by any chemical reactions.

    Focardi further published a few papers in the 1990’s on the subject in a scientific Journal (peer-reviewed ;-)… )

    Focardi S, Habel R, Piantelli F (January 1994): “Anomalous Heat
    Production in Ni-H Systems”. Il Nuovo Cimento A, Volume 107 A, Number 1, 163–167

    Focardi S, Gabbani V, Montalbano V, Piantelli F, Veronesi S (November 1998). “Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems”. Il Nuovo Cimento A, 111(11): 1233–1242. OCLC 204819206.

    Neutron emission in Ni-H systems. Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996), Volume 112, Number 9,
    921–931. Authors: Battaglia, Daddi, Focardi, Gabbani, Montalbano, Piantelli, Sona, Veronesi. Retrieved on SpringerLink.

    Later Rossi contacted Focardi with some creative ideas to possible increase power
    levels….

    So I’m still hopeful for LENR, even if the HOT cat turns out to be junk 😉

    Anyone knows if the 1 MW plant IH have delivered is based on HOT cats, or on the first version of lower temp cats..?
    regards
    Lande

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      about 4)
      there is an obvious answer… because the fuel is not nickel.
      note also that only the surface seems fully transmuted.
      the difference between the surface and bulk isotopic measurement le clear evidence of a real and complex phenomenon.

      note for the spikes timing question, that it seems clear that the E-cat is single phase, like for TPR1… there are two coils, probably for some stabilisation reason…

      anyway there are many question, but since we dn’t know the process but we have to stand on solid facts :

      1- inverting clamps polarity is a student error you can fix in second. it seems that even the PCE830 beep if you invert clamps. you can detect it because of abnormal power, negative or reactive, incoherent with logic… in that case the power of the controller would not look logic as it did. So PEC830 measured electric power correctly.

      2- Industrial Heat would never have risked their credibility in providing reactors they know did not work, to scientists, expecting they do incredibly improbable error, plus bad measurement.

      I admit however; following McKubre sad report, that the calibration is very insufficient.
      there is no rational possibility given what we know that COP=1 (emissivity change from 450 to 900W should be of 6x from nearly 1 to nearly 0) , but there is enough uncertainty to allow deniers to continue fooling the innocent readers with FUD.

      Unless the testers make a correction report, we will have to wait for Rossi’s factory delivery and LENR-Cities industrial partners names outing.

    • Dr. Mike

      Oystein Lande and DickeFix,
      My brother just sent me a link to another theory on LENR- thought you might be interested in reading it:
      http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0169v1.pdf
      I have looked at it it, but haven’t had time to digest it.

      Dr. Mike

    • fact police

      Lande wrote> “Possible answers to your questions:
      “3. An explanation how all Ni isotopes and most other metals in the fuel can be converted to almost pure Ni62 in the ash”
      The ASH analysis is based on a sample representing 0,2% of total ASH weight. In my opinion we cannot base any types of conclusions on a 0,2% sample.”

      But the point of the analysis is that we *should* base conclusions on a 0.2% sample. The exercise was meant to show that the nuclear reactions are happening. If the sample is not representative, then we can’t know there isn’t simple isotopic fractionation going on, and all the Ni-58 is in a different part of the sample. Such an effect without a theoretical mechanism to explain it seems crazy doesn’t it? But radiation-free complete transmutation of Ni-58 to Ni-62 (even if only in isolated places) is a far less plausible without a theoretical mechanism to explain it. At least fractionation doesn’t require the concentration of MeV energies into single atomic sites to explain it.

      Lande> “Other than that “this 0,2% sample show high concentration of 62Ni.” Most likely this is NOT representative of the total. We may speculate that there has been some separation happening at 1400 degC.”

      Yes, and if that’s possible, then you have neutralized evidence that nuclear reactions are happening.

      Lande> “”9. An explanation why the Ni didn´t melt if the power was generated by a reaction in the fuel (Dr. Mike)”

      This is one of the best questions I have seen.”

      This question applies and was raised for Levi2013 as well, and was raised in the context of Levi2014 a few days after the report was released:

      (see ecatnews.com/?p=2669&cpage=4#comments, and search for the post titled “Cats Have Nine Lives”)

      Lande> “The 1 gram powder must have been distributed very evenly on the internal surface to achieve good heat exchange and not melt….”

      That’s not good enough. The rate of heat flow is proportional to a coefficient of heat transfer and the temperature difference, and there is no coefficient large enough to account for such a power with a few tens of degrees temperature difference. For comparison, consider a 1 kW water kettle. In that case the source of heat is some 1000 degrees above the material it is transferring its heat to, and the contact area is if anything much greater. You could not transfer power at twice that rate from 1 gram of material that is only 55 degrees higher in temperature. It’s nonsense.

      Lande> “My interest in Rossi is based upon what was done by Professor Sergio Focardi in the early 1990’s at the University of Bologna. He did nickel-hydrogen reactor experiments,and got Heat out larger than what could be explained by any chemical reactions. Focardi further published a few papers in the 1990’s on the subject in a scientific Journal (peer-reviewed ;-)… )”

      The 1994 Focardi paper did not use any sort of reliable calorimetry. Instead, they just measured the temperature at one or two places of a device cooled unpredictably by the ambient air.

      A group from CERN reproduced their observations and explained them without excess heat by thermal properties that depend on the uptake of hydrogen (Cerron-Zeballos et al, Il Nuovo Cimento 109A (1996) 1645).

      This error was confirmed by their own work in the 1998 Focardi paper, but instead of correcting the error in calorimetry, they continued to make claims based on the same method, even if the temperature was measured at more points. To this day, that experiment has not been reproduced with reliable calorimetry.

  • Oystein Lande

    Looking at the picture the control box looks like something from Control Concepts (CCIPOWER.com), which delivers SCR controllers. The testers possibly used a CCI Fusion 3 Phase power SCR (from the picture may be a Compact Fusion SCR power controller), and phase angle control, either with in-line or hybrid configuration.

    In that case: In addition to the PCE’s they could also get data acquisition from the control box. That one would definitely tell them delivered power. They would be able to do diagnostics, charting, do logging with the control box hooked up to a PC

  • Dr. Mike

    Hank,
    I also don’t believe there was any tampering with the fuel or the ash- there is no reason for a tampering that results in something not readily explainable. Thomas Clarke claims that if the clamp was reversed, the evidence would still exist for this in the PCE-830 data. Do you know of the authors have reviewed the PCE-830 data to confirm that the data shows no clamp reversal?
    Do you understand the issue with the data in the Cu wire “Joule heating” that indicates heater coil currents are much higher than what is indicated by the power readings. If so, what are your thoughts on why the power and Joule heating data do not correlate? My theory on this was that the way the pulse generator is hooked up is causing some problems in the data. Do you know how the pulse generator is hooked up and why it was not included in the wiring diagram?
    I’m not sure what your technical background is, but do you have any background in thermal calculations? If you have some knowledge in this area, would you estimate the temperature at which the .55 grams of Ni would have to be to produce a temperature of 1400C on the outside surface of the main reactor body.
    Let me use this opportunity to thank you for all of the support you have given to promoting LENR.
    Dr. Mike

    • Hank Mills

      I am doing a write up about an idea of mine that might explain the current and joule heating issue. However, even if my idea is not correct, there is no reason to jump to the idea of a clamp reversal (unless you really think the testers were stupid enough to connect the clamps correctly for the dummy run and the control box test and then reverse them to screw up the results) when there are lots of unknowns about what was happening inside the reactor.

      • Dr. Mike

        Hank,
        Looking forward to your thoughts on the joule heating issue.
        Dr. Mike

  • Hank Mills

    Two facts:

    1 – The dummy test found perfect unity.

    2 – The correctly measured the power consumption of the control box that matched the documentation.

    If the clamps had been inverted the above would have been impossible.

    This totally rules out the possibility that the clamps were inverted.

    • DickeFix

      You are correct. For the clamp theory to be true, the clamp(s) need to have been reversed during the loading of the fuel. According to the paper, the electrical data was recorded every 2 second so the research team can easily debunk or confirm this theory by comparing the recorded data of effective load resistance R=P/I^2 before and after the current was turned off for fuel change. Unfortunately, the research group has remained silent for weeks despite that Giancarlo had this question sent to Prof. Hanno Essén soon after the ITP report was realeased and Prof. Essén forwarded the question to Prof. Bo Höistad.

      Despite this silence and regardless of the outcome, I respect the scientists involved and the funding agencies that supported them. Due to the controversial subject of LENR, the researchers were brave to do this experiment since there are research colleagues that regards LENR with the same skeptic attitude as they regard telephaty and telekinesi. I personally think it is a scientific duty to investigate phenomena that seem to contradict established theory until one understands the results fully, especially where the outcome has such a potential importance for mankind. This is equally true regardless if the error is found in the theory or in the measurement procedure.

      The latter seem to have been the case when SP Technical Research Institute during summer 2012 tested the old version of E-Cat using a true RMS instrument to measure power and found the input power two to three times higher than the input power Rossi had measured. SP concluded then that the COP was close to unity.

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/10/nyteknik-reports-on-halted-swedish-investment-in-hydrofusion-following-tests/

      Hence, even if the post analysis of the current data would change the conclusion of the paper and instead again indicate a COP close to unity, it is an important scientific result. Hence, if that turns out to be the case, I sincerely hope the scientists involved are not ridiculed. If they followed good scientific conduct and didn´t consciously change the measurement setup between the calibration and active test, it is naturally that they didn´t recheck the clamp orientations again. Still, in retrospect, it is strange that neither the scientists involved, nor external reviewers who have read the paper, discovered the discrepancy regarding the Joule heating that Giancarlo found.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        good point.
        with logged data, if Ieff is logged, we should see current phase and apparent impedance and observe that if follow a process incompatible with a student error.

        I am afraid however that IH will ask for some trade secret to be protected

  • Dr. Mike

    bkrharold,
    I don’t believe that any errors in the Lugano test are due to deception. However, it doesn’t appear that they had anyone on the team that was an expert in electrical engineering although several probably had some knowledge in this field. I don’t really think that the reputations of anyone on the team will be damaged if there was an error in something that no one on the team had expertise in. Remember the group of physicists that claimed to have measured neutrinos traveling at faster than the speed of light. This group needed outside help to determine what was wrong with their measurements.
    Double checking testing protocols does not help if no one realizes that there is a fundamental problem with the some of data. The important outcome of all this discussion is that the Lugano team will go back over the data and set up, determine what is causing the discrepancy in the data, and issue a revised report that addresses that discrepancy. They also have the opportunity to add to the report many of the suggestions that have been made for improvement.
    Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    Mike,
    I certainly agree with you that a dispersed bed of nanoparticles or microparticles are a lot different than any solid piece of Ni. However, Rossi has told us that once the Ni particles melt the reaction stops. (Also I have melted a lot of metal in an evaporator and the first thing the metal does in clump into a ball from surface tension.) I like your statement “Pure nickel melting could provide a self-modulating feedback loop. As
    the crystal lattice loses its integrity, it would also lose its capacity
    for supporting Bloch waves, deuterium loading, phononic resonance or
    other lattice effects that may be involved. As the material cools and
    recrystallizes, the effect returns.” If you look at the ash particle #1 in Figure 2, page 43 of the report, and compare it to particle #1 in the fuel in Figure 1 on the same page, it appears that there has been a slight amount of melting on the surface of the Ni. (It would have been nice if Figure 1 had the same magnification as Figure 2.)
    I didn’t study the radiant heat calculation since it is out of my field of knowledge so I really don’t have a comment on the radiant energy calculation. However, since you do have some knowledge in this field maybe you could answer a couple of questions. First, if the Ni particles were spread in a line at the bottom of the alumina cylinder and were generating 1660W of power, what would you expect the difference in temperature between the top and bottom of the alumina cylinder? Second, if the Ni particles were uniformly distributed inside of the alumina cylinder, what temperature would the Ni particles have to be at to see a 1400C temperature on the outside of the alumina cylinder? it would be helpful if you could even make an estimate for the answers to these two questions!
    Dr. Mike

  • AlbertNN

    The analysis by Gullstrom is not compatible with the amount of fuel, 1g, that was used in the latest test.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Whatever their qualifications, and competence in some of the needed areas, they have been provably deficient in two areas relating to electrical power:
    (1) they incorrectly stated the current ration between C1 and C2 circuits as 1/2 when it could be no more than 1/sqrt(3). This does not affect the results of the test, because it cancels out – though there is a very small second order change. Nevertheless it is a mistake.

    (2) they did not notice the glaring anomaly between input powrs measured and currents measured. At the very least they should have note this and revised their statement about the heating wire being inconel, which does not have an unusual negative temperature coefficient.

    Competent testers would also have been suspicious of such an unusual discrepancy and cross-checked whether the resistance really changed in such a way with temperature (from the active test warmup data) and whether the total input power was measured correctly by checking the powers for each of the lines to ensure no clamp was reversed.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thomas,
    The manual is clear that you need to hook up the current sensors correctly. Are you familiar enough with the PCE-830 to know what happens to the power reading if one of the sensors was hooked up backwards? Would the measured power to a 3-phase delta connected resistive load only be about 33% of the real value if one of the current sensors was backwards? (or maybe somewhere in the range of 30-36% if the load resistances varied by up to 10%?)
    Dr. Mike

  • Obvious

    Mike, not that this affects the discussion regarding it much, but where did the .55 grams come from?

    • Dr. Mike

      Obvious,
      On page 29 in about the middle of the 4th paragraph, the authors found that the 1 gram of “fuel” contained .55 gram of Ni.
      Dr. Mike

      • Obvious

        Thanks.

  • Dr. Mike

    bkrharold,
    I’m sorry that you find this post perplexing. The electrical engineers among our audience all realize that there is a discrepancy in the Lugano data between the measured input power on the PCE-830 meter and power generated in the heater coils based on the current flowing through them. I don’t remember seeing a single comment where anyone disputed the analysis of the fuel and ash showing that nuclear reactions had taken place.
    My other major point of this post is that doesn’t seem possible to generate 3000W of power in 0.55 grams of Ni without melting the Ni. Since my background in thermal engineering is limited to one course in thermodynamics that i took many years ago, I was hoping someone in the audience would have the background to calculate or estimate a maximum power generation per gram of Ni using assumptions based on the environment of the Hot-Cat. Do you think 3000W could be generated in .55 grams of Ni without melting the Ni? For reference, a Ni wire that’s 1mm in diameter and 8cm in length would be about .55 grams of Ni.
    Dr. Mike

    • LCD

      From any model where the heat is generated as a black body from the nickel internally it’s not even close, if guess 3000 C minimum.

      • LCD

        Just doesn’t make sense