Rossi on the Clamps in the Lugano E-Cat Test

There has been considerable discussion on this site and elsewhere regarding the conjecture that misapplied current clamps could have been responsible for incorrect measurement readings on the Lugano E-Cat report. We have not heard any comment on the topic from the authors of the report as yet, and many are hoping for some response to come from them.

Today, however, Andrea Rossi has made this comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about this issue:

Boss:
This situation of the “changed position of the clamps” is very funny, while it is also an evidence of the correctness of the work of the Professors. Lacking real reasons to make a serious critic, these persons make “assumptions”: they “assume” that the clamps of the two PCE830 have been changed of position, and upon this “assumption” are writing all their lectures. I make you a simple example of what is going on: you are driving your car correctly, respecting all the laws related to driving, but suddenly a policeman stops you and says: ” I assume you were going overspeed, so you have to pay a fine”. No evidence at all that you have violated the speed limit, but, based on his assumption, he wants to fine you.
This situation is exactly the same.
THE SET UP OF THE EXPERIMENT, INCLUDED THE SET UP OF THE TWO PCE830 HAS BEEN DONE BY THE PROFESSORS, NOT BY ME. THE PROFESSORS CONTROLLED EVERY DAY THE CORRECTNESS OF ALL THE CONNECTIONS. ONE OF THEM (PROF ROLAND PETTERSON) WAS SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED TO THIS TASK. THE CLAMPS HAVE NEVER BEEN DISCONNECTED, EXCHANGED, DISPLACED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
Obviously the persons that have an agenda finalized to try to say negative things, not having serious things or citics to make, now fish in the lake of “assumptions” and “hypotesis”. From this lake you can fish out all the monsters you want, being just “assumptions”.
Photos: I was not allowed to make photos and therefore I do not have any photo. The Professors know perfectly how the clamps have been put and know perfectly that no displacement or changement has been done.
The level of this critic is so low, that it is not worth the time of an answer, so, as you rightly wrote, the temptation to spam it has crossed my brain, but you are always so kind that I decided to answer
Warm Regards,
A.R.

We do know that Andrea Rossi was at the testing site and must have seen the setup of the test. It’s interesting that he names Roland Pettersson here as the one responsible for the management of all the connections involved. Perhaps he will address the question at some point.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    I think that the test team would not have made an obvious mistake. It is only logical to assume that they are competent and made proper measurements. When I make measurements, I usually approach the problem from several angles to see if the results match. A simple clamp -on probe on a hand-held meter could have confirmed if the more complex meter results were in the ballpark. Dreaming up all sorts of conspiracy theories implies that the testers are in on the fraud. I do not see any reason why they should be.

    To understand why a good test team checks the results, I once had an expensive harmonic power analyzer from a reputable US manufacturer (big name in the measurement industry) that reported a reactionary power measurement when a triac dimmer was applied to a resistive load. A resistive load can only have real (non-reactive) power. Reactive power occurs when a component like a capacitor or inductor “absorbs” power during a portion of the cycle and “returns” it a a later time. The meter was wrong.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    It was single phase because, though it was connected as a three-phase load, the third leg current was zero. That meant that it was really only connected electrically to two phases.

  • bachcole

    “The test a year ago, for example, could have been easily spoofed with a loopback connection using contra-running currents.” I think that you are so in love with your own intellect that you are capable of thinking that the professors are capable of being so stupid.

  • GreenWin

    Tom, now you just sound like a conspiracy whacko. Because the body of LENR evidence outside E-Cat is enormous and mounting daily. And you need not be a forensic analyst to know the major multinationals partnered with Elforsk.

  • Omega Z

    Question:
    Do you think it really matters what anyone on the blogs think?

    Any Corporation who has interest is not going to surf the blogs. They will go straight to Industrial Heat. Our opinions hold no weight.
    They can access all the data. Raw or condensed. And following up with a private test with their own personnel on hand. It could already be or have taken place.

    A thought: The E-cat community has just provided a crowd sourced vetting of the 3rd party test. Thousands of eyeballs, Friend & Foe, from scientists to the armchair critic.

    In a 50+ page report, it is quite easy to make a mistake or transpose numbers. And quite hard to find them. It can become quite blurred. All have been a great help. They can now easily go to specific points & check for typo’s or skewed math or it’s symbols. Adding overlooked details & foot notes.

    They now have a very strong paper to present to any serious entities & provide the raw data if they find interest in it. Good Job to “Everyone who Contributed”.
    I would enjoy an update, But, Seriously, They don’t really owe us anything if they so choose not to.

  • Omega Z

    “The purpose of this test was to publicly prove that the effect is real.”

    Sorry Andreas. I have never heard that except from other posters on the blogs. In reality, It does not matter what any of us think. If we should decide it does not work & disappear tomorrow, It would have no effect on IH/Rossi’s plans at this point.

    A more accurate view would be- “The purpose of this test was to prove that the effect is real.” Nothing public to it.
    It would be data to be provided to interested business parties. They have all the data at their disposal. Not bits & pieces as we do.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Reversing the clamp in the previous test could explain the COP — NOT. Reversing the clamp should have produced zero input power. It was really a single phase supply. What goes in one lead comes out the other. The phase voltage was the same for both (magnitude). If a clamp was reversed, one lead would produce negative power (resistor converting the power to heat) and the other would produce positive power (a generator???). The positive power would cancel the negative power producing zero power.

  • Obvious

    The resistance calculated for the reactor calculated above, is that for the individual resistors, or the effective combined resistance?

    • ivanc

      They are calculated using:479=3R (IL/sqrt(3))^2
      So is individual resistors.
      Note how the 3 cancels out with the sqrt(3)^2 in the denominator.
      so the expresion turns:
      R=479/( IL^2)

      • Obvious

        I ran the numbers a slightly different way, but got the same result, manually.
        But then I utterly confused myself with a delta current calculator online when I ended up with another solution (0.716 Ohm). (I was using 481 W for some reason). Both 1.24 Ohm and 0.716 Ohm seemed to satisfy the requirement of 19.7 A and 481 W (a byproduct 14.1 V Line voltage was calculated in the procedure, which also remained constant for both answers). Note that 1.24 is 1.73 x 0.716. I was wondering where the square root of three got cancelled in one calculation, and not the other. There may be backdoor calculation using P = UI that somehow gives the square root of three the slip (for the calculator anyways).

        I note that all the calculations give a rather low voltage, which is likely an artifact of a low conduction angle. This makes me seriously wonder about any resistance values achieved, since a low conduction angle could in effect cause the delta to operate with two phases only, as if it were a Wye with an open phase, but operating at an effective 2/3R (instead of only two resistors in series, the third would be in parallel with the other two. This would screw up almost all the calculations.

        In the case that only two phases are active (one phase effectively disconnected), the calculator gives a value of 0.62 Ohms, which would result in a single reactor resistor value of 0.93 Ohms. (unless I messed something doing that adjustment).

      • Obvious

        Just to clarify further, the Iresistor column is the current in each resistor, at the same time the ILine current is the one in the column immediately to the left?.

        Just because I was fooling around with your calculated values and using P=(I^2)R, in row one:

        P = (I^2)R

        P = (26.94^2)1.2342498

        P = (725.7636)1.2342498

        P = 894.502 W

        This should be the power developed in a single resistor. Ignoring the Joule heating then (almost insignificant in terms of the total power), the remaining 19.73 A (46.67 – 26.94) in the line must then flow through one or both of the other two resistors in some fashion.
        The maximum power output would be obtained by flowing this remaining current through both resistors in series, if possible. So then using P=I^R (P=((19.73^2)2(1.2342498), we get a maximum power production of 960.92 W for the remaining current of 19.7 A (46.67 – 26.94).
        Summing the powers of the two results, we get only 1855.421 W, which is much lower than 2688.21 W in the final column, and still higher than actually possible, unless the circuit can put the calculated currents simultaneously through one single resistor as well as two resistors in series at the same time, but somehow not split the loads equally (feasible in three phase power?).
        So where did I get lost in that math?

  • Ged

    So wait, you’re saying an highly dramatic “no” to me saying we need full data, as I’ve been saying here and all along, and then go on to say we need the full data? I am rightfully confused.

  • Gerrit

    According to Rossi the public demonstrations of the e-cat back in 2011 were done on request of Focardi who wanted to present the work he had been involved in, in what we know now where the last years of his life.

    Essen and Kullander witnessed those demonstrations and requested to investigate the ecat more thoroughly. Therefore the third party tests were initiated primarily by the third party, not by Rossi.

    I understand that you would like a written statement somewhere in the report that the clamps were definitely correctly oriented, but would that really take away your doubt ? Or would you then find something else to doubt. For instance if the scientists excluded the possibility of Rossi secretly installing infrared laser which heated up the e-cat. Or Rossi secretly patching the firmware of the cameras so they report higher values.
    Or Rossi patching the firmware of the PCE830 to report lower values.
    Does the report say anything about the firmware version of the equipment ? Oh No ! the report is worthless to you, because if doesn’t spend a full page on every minute bit of info you choose to get all worked up about.

  • Obvious

    I understand the breadth of your waveform analysis better now.

  • GreenWin

    This has become a specious discussion. There is no issue here and with today’s article from Elforsk – they seem perfectly content with the Lugano authors work. THAT’s what matters. COMMERCIAL applications. In spite of Mary Yugo’s desperate pleas to the Elforsk CEO, he goes ahead and endorses LENR. And with recent publication of the Norwegian paper on “Casimir forces in a Plasma…” We are looking at a whole new way to define particle physics. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032.pdf

  • Obvious

    I don’t think that indicates they knew they could run it higher, prior to the active run. If the word “previously” were moved ahead of “informed” in the first sentence, I would be more likely to agree. Maybe even strongly agree.

    We could dissect the English usage and split hairs about the statement. And get nowhere.
    So lets move on from that.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Last year’s test was in reality, a single phase connection. A reversed clamp would have shown zero power in, leading to an INFINITE COP. Unlikely that would have snuck through. The test configuration were different. Those who say the same “reversed clamp” could explain the last test’s COP are smoking something.

  • Freethinker

    The apparent delusion comes from your desire to go beyond the box of the scope, where there is little or no information so you need to base your conclusion on your own conjectures and confabulations.

    There is no information that is of high confidence in terms of deciding that there was an inverted clamp. None. If the clamps are correctly applied, as they were for the dummy, and thus for the active reactor, and we feel confident enough about the thermal imaging power computations, then the claims stands.

    Would it be nice to get more information from the test team? More in depth in those things we speculate on? Sure. I would very much like to have more data. But it does not change the verdict that the claims are valid based on the information in the report.

  • Freethinker

    If you set your own scope, you will be certain to fail as you will inevitably end up in the domain of no information. The scope I talk about is naturally the scope of the test.

  • Freethinker

    Your disappointment is the fruit of your failing logic. You wish to explain more which is beyond the scope. You confabulate and conjecture from data you have not, while you reject the data that is there and the scope of the work.

    Of of course you will be disappointed.

  • Obvious

    The problem with the dummy run was they did not know in advance hot it would get in the active run, nor how much power they could successfully put into it. Apparently they came very close to melting the reactor in the active run anyways, if the reactor dies at 1455°C when nickel melts.
    Once the reactor had been fueled, run, and emptied, running another dummy run at a higher temperature may have added unknown complexities (like Ni stuck inside, etc.)
    A series of dummy runs with increasing power levels before the active run would have made things much more clear.
    Probably part of their thinking was not to wreck the reactor. Period. Even if a replacement was available, everyone would freak out that the device had been changed, so all the measurements must be done completely all over, from the beginning, causing much delay.

  • Obvious

    Thanks also.

  • Obvious

    Thanks. That was clear, and helpful.

  • Obvious

    I have a quick question about the Word document Giancarlo De Marchis clamp test with photos. When the I3 clamp was reversed, the magnitude of the amps measured were shown to be approximately the same as when the clamp was facing the right way, and there was no sign (+/-).
    Does this mean that this is not RMS amps displayed? For some reason I expected the reverse RMS current to read higher (~5.8*1.73 = ~10 A), due to conducting the return path of two phases.
    My three phase power understanding is pretty rough, but improving. A clear response, rather than “that’s wrong”, would be helpful.

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

      the facst that I3 (rms probably) is twice I1 and I2 is really not classic 3pahse balanced.

      normally in 3phase balanced, even if classically switched

      I1rms=I2rms=I3rms

      however the 3 currents are (if balanced) rotated by 120degrees from each others.

      IF I1rms+I2rms=I3rms THEN i1(t), i2(t), i3(t) are more or less synchronous.

      probably i3(t)=-(i1(t)+i2(t))

      if the load is simple, probably this imply that

      u1(t)=u2(t)

      and the wiring can be delta, Y or V, no matter since no current circulate from wire 1 to wire 2

      I’m puzzled, and I hesitate between two hypothesis

      1- the formulat I3rms=I1rms+I2rms is not valid (maybe is is Ipeak, or Iavg, or…)

      2- u1(t)=u2(t), ie it is de facto a monophase load with a useless branch R1,2.

      note that in that case if the I3 clamp was reverted, then power would be ZERO

      is I1 or I2 clam was reverted then displayed power would be HALF

      and there would be evidence of some huge neutral current while there is no neutral wire

      the 1/3 power is just because the skeptics ignore that I vs I/2 claim. It is not absurd as this claim is weird, but it should be documented.

  • Freethinker

    The you are probably having a too big ambition in what you try to reconcile. Stick to the scope, look at the two key observables.

    • Obvious

      Reconciliation of the available data IS a big ambition.

      But, to paraphrase JFK:

      We choose to reconcile the data. We choose to reconcile the data in this month, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

  • Freethinker

    “The testers have all this data, and enough to diagnose clamp reversal,
    recorded. If it did not happen they can explain, using the recorded
    data, how else these results were obtained.”

    Exactly. So they know the clamp was not reversed. It is a construct of pathological skeptics that it was inverted, as confabulation and conjecture. You repeatedly state that you await there comment. Maybe they will answer your prayers. Or maybe not. It is often useless to feed those who are insatiable as they will constantly rise the bar and demand more. A typical trait for those who has already made up their mind that this cannot work.

    It was a black box test. There was no inverted clamp, as that would have been easily discovered. The result show clearly a COP of 3. The ash show clear signs of nuclear reactions.

    That is what the evidence says.

  • Freethinker

    Why is that? You claim to be an expert. He has worked with analytical chemistry for quite some time (an understatement), an occupation which is by it’s nature very much laborative.

    You may also consider the very strong possibility that he have had help by real experts to do it – even if you may have a hard time believing so.

  • Obvious

    I wasn’t suggesting that electrons flying into the wires somehow was a realistic interpretation. It was an off-the-cuff extreme scenario.

    • Obvious

      If instead the electrons flew off the resistor wires, into the reaction, do you think that they would they be counted if they were not accounted for on the other end of the conductor? Would they be part of the measureable current?

  • Freethinker

    And as there is no *evidence* of such a clamp being wrongly placed, he is likely correct in his statement.

  • Freethinker

    😀

    And of course it has exactly 0 impact on the credibility of the test, as he was SUPERVISED. Only in the mind of pathological skeptics would it automatically generate “misplaced” clamps, and other weird artifacts.

  • Sanjeev

    It seems he is the same Prof Petterson who tested the regular Ecat 3 years ago.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6nlHlW8VRc

    He speaks positively for the Ecat and is a Prof of Chemistry. I guess a wrong choice for “independent” tester according to the skeptologic. This is more fuel for skeptics (of all kind).

    There is even more fuel for skeptics in Rossi’s statement here, because he defends the accuracy of the report when he was not allowed to be present there or even take a photo. (That’s strange, as noted by a commentator below). Rossi should have simply forwarded the objection to the third party instead of fielding it for them. Of course, he always said the results can be positive or negative, so why worry?

    He tried to defend the I1/2 issue also. So why is he doing this? And why is the third party so silent? The raw data or some clarification could have settled the matter permanently. Actually all this secrecy and silence by the testers and IH are not helping to establish a good reputation for lenr. Perhaps they intend to do so for some reasons, but I find it frustrating.

  • Obvious

    I am working on a rough model, using a rotating disconnected phase idea for the active run, that so far:

    results in a constant calculated resistance for each of the reactor coils,

    results in a very large increase in the C2 Joule heating W for the active run,

    that matches a 2.4 times increase in watts from the dummy run,

    uses no inverted clamps,

    uses no strangeness in the heater coils,

    but results in a calculated ~200 W more than reported during the active run,

    But it is a work in progress, and needs some revisions.

    So some fine tuning may resolve the calculations to match the observations reported (or my idea may fall apart in a decent simulation).

  • Obvious

    I would like to assume that strange/unexplained forces are not required in the heating power calculations. At least for the first pass. I think there is a way to reconcile the values without extreme assumptions, or inverted clamps.

    For all we know, electrons are flying off the H atoms and are stacking into the resistance wires somehow. But if that were true, it would make electricity, solving a lot of problems.

  • andrea.s

    It is not surprising nor a scandal that Rossi defends the results and the testers team.

    However, if I were Prof. Pettersson, I would feel offended by being exposed by Rossi as the one in charge before having personally replied to the critics.

    I hope Prof. Pettersson, whom I don’t know professionally, but I instinctively trust as perfectly honest, will now shed some light on the input power measurements.

    Andrea Rossi believes we critics “have an agenda”, well yes my personal agenda is to know the truth and either restore or cancel my interest in this story (time is precious). All I ask is to show the upstream and downstream PCE readings and waveforms in representative phases of the dummy run and of the experiment run.

    It is not credible that a chopped sinewave is a trade secret, when Rossi claims that the next hot-cat version will be gas-powered.

    • Gerrit

      I am sick and tired of all these critics “demanding” that Rossi fully discloses every little detail of his invention.

      You’ll never hear these critics demand that the science establishment should finally get their act together and read up on the multitude of peer reviewed papers reporting excess heat and transmutations that have been published over the last 25 years.

      If science would have seriously looked into this and properly used the scienctific method on this phenomenon we would already know if this works or not and we would not be talking about Rossi and a TIP report today.

      Rossi has sold his invention to Industrial Heat and they are working hard to bringing this device to market.

      If you really want to know if there is any valid science behind it, complain to the science establishment for having completely ignored this while they firmly believed this is all just crackpot.

      • psi2u2

        You are expecting the critics to be real skeptics. This is something they are unwilling or unable to do. I share your frustration.These kinds of demands are characteristic, in my experience, of those on the losing end of a paradigm shift when they are defending deeply entrenched interests. They aim to discredit by their demands. They don’t really want to know the answers, but they want to make the paradigm busters look bad. (This should not be taken as a general comment including ALL skeptics of Rossi — merely a general defining trait that is often visible).

    • psi2u2

      If you think that all the “critics” share your claimed agenda, you are either naive or stupid. You may be an honest critic, but many are not. The agendas involved here are enormous, would you not admit?

    • Freethinker

      “It is not credible that a chopped sinewave is a trade secret, when Rossi
      claims that the next hot-cat version will be gas-powered.”

      Maybe you are reading in to much in this. Has it ever been stated that it will ONLY be gas powered?

      Likely the heating itself will be gas powered, but likely you need a control box to regulate the gas flow, and most likely pump a current to drive electrons, protons and other charged particles so inclined to be driven, in the core.

  • LuFong

    Why is Rossi defending the “Independent Report?” It’s not Rossi’s report. How does Rossi even know who was responsible for the electrical connections and the process they used? How does Rossi know that the clamps were not manipulated? Are the testers talking to Rossi about this issue? Again why? I would expect the testers to respond to the questions in a reasonable time frame (it’s been almost a month now). So far it’s been pretty much all Rossi.

    I would also like to hear what restrictions the testers were under when doing the test. According to Rossi none but we know from the report there was limits on the ash sample side.

    • Daniel Maris

      Lu Fong, always wrong.

      No doubt this riposte from Rossi has upset you, but you will have to live with it.

    • Freethinker

      So many questions.

      That which has been proven, need not be assumed.

      Why is Rossi defending the “Independent Report?”

      Why not. After all, it is his invention, he was there, supervised, to start, stop, load fuel and unload ash. Likely he would have met some of the people involved when there.

      It would be better, though, if the test team published an addendum to the report, clarifying points that are reasonable withing the scope of the investigation.

      The clamp is of course a “possible” explanation, albeit very remote in it’s likelihood, due to the very easy detection of such an error.

  • AlbertNN

    Why would not Rossi be allowed to take photos? I do not understand that at all.

  • Obvious

    Well, too bad about not having more photos.
    But Rossi’s point is a good one: If you don’t take what the report says at face value, and make new assumptions not based on what is written in the report, then any hypothesis can be conjured.
    I would like to see an independent analysis that supports all the data provided, using the data provided.
    A lot of energy seems to have gone into making the reactor “not work”. Why not spend at least as much time making the details fit the provided information? Even the sceptics should be able to fiddle with the data enough to make a mathematically consistent version of the story. Then we can discuss the variants from the “does work” theories with “not work” theories more completely.

    • Ged

      Very true. Full data charts would be most helpful from the professors, as surely all such was logged. That would make this very simple, with no assumptions on anyone’s parts.

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

        one probmem is that if you give me the complete listing of crrents, power, voltage, harmonics, phase, I can guess many things on how the controller works, what is the load characteristics, the reactor dynamics…

        and this may release trade secrets.

        • Freethinker

          True, and add to that the fact that it is often useless to feed those who are insatiable as they will constantly rise the bar and demand more.

      • Freethinker

        Ohh, but Ged!

        There is nowhere stated that the two pce-830 instruments where connected when the reactor was active! No. Why would one want to have that check when one start up the most controversial contraption on Earth since fire.

        • Ged

          Haha, I love the way you think, my free thinking friend. You see right through their independent, nothing to gain, ruse ;)!