Rossi on Manufacturing E-Cat Reactors, Fuel

Today I put some questions to Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics regarding the making of the reactor and preparation of the powder used in the Lugano test:

Frank Acland
November 10th, 2014 at 6:01 PM
Dear Andrea,

Can you tell us:

1. Who made the reactor that was used in the Lugano report?
2. Who prepared the powder that was used in the reactor?
3. What your role was (if any) in preparing the above items?

Many thanks,

Rossi’s response:

1- The reactor that has been used in the Lugano test has been manufactured in the factory of Industrial Heat, in Raleigh, North Carolina.
2- The charge has been prepared by Industrial Heat, as all the charges are now, obviously upon the instructions I delivered with the know how.
3- I had no role in the preparation of the reactor and of the charges, because I trust my magnificent Team. After months of rehearsing, the Team of IH is able to manufacture everything without my help. For example, the 1 MW for the Customer of IH has been completely manufactured without my intervention. The reactor used in Lugano is just one out of many of them manufactured on the factory of IH by their workers, directed by their engineers. I spent most of my time making experiments in my laboratory. We have well clear and specified tasks: they have to earn money, I have to spend it ( he,he,he…). The charges are made by the top level persons that have access to them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

From the last sentence it sounds like there are only a few people in the organization with the knowledge about the composition of the charge, and access to this special powder that is so crucial to the E-Cat’s operation.

It now sounds like there is an established group of engineers in charge of the manufacturing activities, and Rossi is uninvolved with that side of things now, except, I would guess, when it comes to developing new technology and processes.

Again, it sounds like there is no lack of funds to hamper operations at IH. There must still be plenty of investment money at Rossi’s disposal, since mass marketing has yet to begin.

  • Obvious

    R1=(rb+rb)rc /(ra+rb+rc)
    You measure the resistance between two delta corners (x,y), so Rxy
    One resistor is directly across the two corners.
    Two resistors are across the one resistor, connected to the same corners. These are in series, then parallel with the one resistor (Draw the delta with one flat side up, this is the resistor side we are working with.
    Since all r’s are equal then
    Rxy = (r+r)r/r+r+r
    Rxy = (2r)r/3r
    Rxy= 2r/3
    3Rxy = 2r
    2/3Rxy = r or Rxy = 3/2 r

    • Obvious

      I think I also have a very simple solution for the infamous Lugano report OL PCE-830 pulse photo. The professors are sneaky…. and are protecting IH’s IP, more or less.

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

    no sqrt(3) assume balanced phases
    here it is clearly not balanced.

    about triac they can stop at zerocurrent,zerovoltage, but relative to eachothers.
    if you see the 3 sinusoid on paper it is not when it cross the baseline, but when two phase voltage cross eachothers, that you can stop (in fact they stop alone unless you retrigger them) their both triac.

  • Obvious

    I will probably do the experiment. It is so much easier.
    What I am attempting to give proofs of is that the special case is equivalent to the other more complex cases, due to rotational symmetry around the vertex of the three phase equation vectors.
    I’ll scrounge up the maths at some point soon. (I actually have things to do other than post here).
    If you have the time, please test the 90° reference (conduction) angle math , using vector formulas. Then do the other two 120° offset branches of the circuit to solidify the result. Use the same power, amps and resistance (pick easy values).
    Then, add 15° to each of the phase angles, using the same input values as above, and compare the results of the vector addition.
    They should be identical in net results.
    This means that you can choose a reference angle of your liking, since we are not measuring instantaneous power, but average power, with average current.
    Since the reference angle for L1 three phase is usually 30°, most people start here. With average values, you will have an average conduction angle that splits the 120° of possible conduction in half, which is 60 °. But this should be added to the 30° reference angle, resulting in 90°. Therefore the average values are the special case.

    • Obvious

      Maybe I can provide another example, to demonstrate the rotational symmetry of the vector vertex.
      You can put the current probes in any order around the L1, L2, or L3 lines. This moves the reference angle 120°. You may end up with CW instead of CCW rotation, but the “start” point can be any one of the three phase leads, separated by 120°. The start point does not affect the results at all. You cannot physically connect a probe to 90°, but as long as the other two phases are separated from the reference point by 120° (plus and minus), the results will be identical for average values.

  • psi2u2

    Understood.

  • Dr. Mike

    ivanc,
    I had the definition of RMS correct, but I do see where I made an error. (I was making a calculation with only a portion of the wiring diagram.) So I am back to agreeing with you that the report needs a 1/SQRT(3) factor in calculating the RMS currents in the C2 lines. This means that the C2 line currents were not independently measured!
    Dr. Mike

  • Dr. Mike

    DickeFix,
    You are correct-my error. I think ivanc is correct that the report should have used a 1/SQRT (3) factor in the currents going to the heater coils, which means they did not independently measure this current.
    Dr. Mike

    • Obvious

      Dr. Mike, please consider the reference angle of 90° for one phase. I think you will find that in that case the C2 cable current is one half of C1, for the first set of C1 and C2 cables. Follow the entire circuit to the ends of the other two C1 cables. The second set of C2 cables will not be 1/2 of the current in the first C1 cable, but these two opposite C1 cables will have 1/2 of the first C1 current.

  • psi2u2

    Hi Bachole, I’m trying to remember why i posted that lol….:)…I may have misplaced the comment. Sorry for any confusion. I agree those numbers are pretty close, and of course you are correct that replication has been the LENR devil for a long time.

  • psi2u2

    Good. I didn’t mean that I did not appreciate the desire for more information. I share it.

  • Rafael

    which link should I click to talk to andrea rossi on the journal of nuclear physics?

  • Omega Z

    Distributor brings in a $10K Diamond to sell.
    The jeweler needs to check that it’s real.
    Jeweler goes to back room to test it. Comes back out. This is fake.

    We find ourselves in court.
    The Judge:
    Has no Idea if the Distributor brought the jeweler a fake.
    Or if the jeweler switched the real diamond for a fake in the back room.
    This is what nightmares are made of.

    The distributor & jeweler should have accompanied one another for the test. This nightmare could have been avoided.

    Rossi’s technology is priceless.
    Rossi and the testers were both present for the fuel loading & unloading for good reason. Trust, but verify.

    Oh, And the Judge being the political animal he was, Determined neither the distributor nor jeweler were intelligent enough to have possession of such precious stones & impounded them all. His wife was very happy…

    • Gerard McEk

      So judges cannot be trusted any more? :~(

  • Freethinker

    No ivan, you are wrong. Again.

    Doped Inconel mean that the Inconel had some other element or elements added to it in the manufacturing. It does not mean that there was alloy and the Iconel was added as an impurity to that material.

    From the perspective of the scope of the test, there is no need to know that the Inconel is doped or not. Not really. It has a some impact in computing the joule heat, but it represent a negligible part of the output computation (1-2%).

    You seem excited over this hot potato of yours. If you think Rossi is thinking of this as a hot potato, I think you are wrong. Again.

    • ivanc

      “The coils of the reactor are made with a proprietary alloy, and the inconel is only a doped component of it.”
      But I agree with you, the resistor should not be an issue for the ecat, specially as Rossi wants to use gas instead. so why the resistances will have to drop its value by a factor of 3.3.

  • Freethinker

    And there you go. 😀

    Like I told you, it is conjectures based on information you don’t have. Your fail to realize that you cannot compare the active situation with the dummy., however “impossible” that may seem to you.

    You fail to realize that the voltage set in the active compared to the dummy, duty cycle and even how the control box is working is unknown, and outside the test scope to describe.

    You are extrapolating and guessing making your statement pure conjecture. You “find” evidence to data that can be equally well explained in other ways, albeit those explanations are not those you favor, so you stick with you special choice of conjectured explanation, that fits your believe that the ECAT does not work.

    Look at the scope, look at the data given for that within the scope, and the claims become fully acceptable.

  • Obvious

    I would like a good, solid conversation on this circuit, and get the bugs out of both of our versions. This is not about me attacking anyone’s idea. I want to get it right.
    I have calculated the current in the active run three different ways, and have come to the same active run current result you have calculated for each row in your spreadsheet.
    The point of testing the calculations with multiple methods is that the results should match regardless, as long the process was done correctly each way.
    So:
    Attach the amp probe around both C2 cables coming from one C1 Cable. The opposite currents will cancel from the other two phases. The RMS current of the pair of C2 cables will read the same current as the C1 cable. This means you can split the load exactly 50/50 between cables.
    We must come to agreement on this point to move ahead.
    But resistance of the two wires then must be calculated using parallel wire rules.
    The entire circuit can be analyzed like this. This is the point of doing RMS measurements. You can skip the complex offset phase relationships in a balanced load by converting the circuit to a Wye, and treating it as a DC circuit.

    • ivanc

      if you have done your second course on alternate current you will know you can not addup or take away currents with different phase.
      but the meter can. this is why you still get the same reading.
      but if you read the cables separate you will find the readings will follow the sqrt(3) rule.
      so iL cos(a)=ir1 cos(b)+ir2 cos(c)
      but to avoid phase differences and complex numbers and al the complexities of alternate current, we use RMS.
      and work as it was DC, but you have to be careful to use the equivalances correctly.
      Just google for delta 3phase sqrt(3) and you find the reasons.
      also google

      average current/voltage
      RMS
      and you find the RMS is the equivalent to DC, and average is useles in alternate systems

      • Obvious

        You cannot add or take away a phase randomly. But from the perspective of each phase relative to the other phases, the complete set of all the other possible phase angles of the complete system are equivalent in a balanced system.

        In other words, if the reference phase angle is 10° for one phase, and the other two are offset respectively plus and minus 120°, the aggregate of all the powers, currents, and voltages will be same for the entire circuit (all three phases) as when the reference phase at 11°, 25°, 90°, etc.

        This means that there are some specific reference angles which conveniently remove or cancel parts of the other phases, and these special cases can be exploited to simplify the math.

        Average values can easily throw a wrong turn into a calculation, unless there is a clear understanding of what and how the number is averaged.
        Using average values can, in effect, specify what the reference phase angle must be in some cases.

        *My electrical background is primarily in automotive electrical systems. I used to find and repair the “intractable” electrical problems from multiple car dealerships, as well as my own customers in a very busy shop. Cars, boats, RV’s, industrial machinery, even some planes. (The owners always referred to hovercraft, rather than planes…). Custom charging systems designed and assembled for multiple simultaneous voltages. (Low Riders and audio fanatics). I am also quite skilled with house electrical. (I can install four-way controlled light switches from scratch without getting confused, the first time). My house wiring has been inspected on many occasions and passed every time. My DC experience makes me very particular about good connections.

        A week ago or so I was a complete newbie at three phase power. I am coming up to speed quickly, (I think).

  • Dr. Mike

    Ivanc,
    I believe your calculations are correct, except for the “sqrt(3)” factor. I think I’ve figured out why the authors correctly used a factor of 1/2, rather than 1/SQRT(3). If the controller just reduced the voltage to the Inconel coils, supplying full sine waves to the loads, then the “1/SQURT(3)” term would be appropriate because the RMS current supplied by the controller would be the superposition of 2 sine waves that are 120 deg out of phase. The RMS of this superposition of currents results in the “1/SQRT(3)” factor. However, the TRIAC controller supplies a chopped waveform. Since the voltage applied to the each resistive coil during the dummy run is well less than 20V (RMS) the TRIAC can be assumed to have a short duty cycle, perhaps only 30 deg or less of a 180 deg half cycle. This means that a supreposition of 2 phases that are 120 deg apart will not overlap. As long as there is no overlap, the proper factor is 1/2. (C1 lines just have twice as many identical pulses as the C2 lines.) If the wave forms did partially overlap, the factor would come out somewhere between 1/2 and 1/SQRT(3).
    I’m not sure if the chopped waveforms of 2 adjacent phases overlap during the active run, but my guess is that they do not so the 1/2 factor is also valid for the active runs. Do you agree with the assessment? I believe the authors should state in the report that they are able to say the RMS current in C! can be assumed to split into two equal RMS currents in the C2 lines because the current waveforms do not overlap. I now believe that they measured the C2 RMS currents separately and found that the C2 RMS currents did add up to the C1 RMS current. Perhaps Thomas Clarke could add to this discussion.
    Note that if you agree that the factor for the chopped waveforms is “1/2”, the you need to recalculate the coil resistance and the voltage you calculated above. Another interesting calculation is the RMS voltage supplied to each Inconel coil for the dummy run vs. the active runs using the power data from Table 7 and the current data calculated from the Joule heating data in Table 7. You will find the the supplied voltage in the dummy run was actually higher than either of the portions of the active run. It would be interesting to see the data for the potentiometer setting for the dummy and active runs. For the active run did they first start slowly turning up the potentiometer setting and then decrease the setting as the nuclear reactions started to eventually reach the first active operating point?
    Dr. Mike

  • Obvious

    Current in one ecat resistance is 3/2 of the (equal) resistance of the total reactor. 923 W above is a sum of two corners of the delta. You must convert the delta to a wye before attempting such non-vector calculations.

  • psi2u2

    I don’t really follow the logic of your claim. Why does Dardan’s wanting to “benefit the world” preclude him being strategic about how he does it? Anyone who watches this in any serious way must realize that the regulatory issues could be very big. I see Dardan being pretty strategic. Maybe he is doing this because he really does care who brings out a working LENR device ready for the market and wants it to be his team — which, after all, would be entirely understandable. Or maybe he just feels that being lowkey right now is best for the entire LENR community.

    Regarding the report authors, I agree, I would like to hear from them in some way.

    • Omega Z

      All in perspective.
      Darden doesn’t Care if someone beats them to market.
      However, He isn’t going to give away Industrial Heats IP.

      Take Note that competition is good. Someone else may come up with a better approach then Rossi/IH. If they freely gave away the technology, these other approaches could be delayed for years.