Silicon Carbide Three Phase Heating Element by SIC Industries Matches Data From Report [Update: Practical Joke Admitted]

The following comments were posted by Andreas Moraitis:

Thanks to cobraf, AlainCo & others:


Image from this document:

This SiC heating element seems to match perfectly the data from the report.

I’m not sure about the absolute values per wire, but the relationships are apparently correct. The resistance drops about 1/3.5 from 450 to 1200 deg C and remains then constant until 1400 deg C.

UPDATE: I heard from Andrea S. who has admitted this document was not genuine — see this message below:

Dear Frank,

As you probably suspected, there is no Sic Industries LLC, it is a little practical joke on some  Cobraf bloggers who were prompting me to assess feasibility of the three-fold resistance drop.
I  didn’t mean to make fun of you at E-Cat World, let alone the MFMP who is doing a fantastic job in the quest for truth: their investigation is key to understand whether the optical thermography  can be trusted.
I am not qualified to argue on that part. I have posted a critical review of the power input data of the TPR2 where I didn’t rule out the possibility of a nonlinear resistance as (tardively) claimed by Rossi, rather I showed that if one does assume this nonlinearity, then the infamous Figure 5 doesn’t match the expected pulsewidth.
Nevertheless I did give a look to the possibility that the dogbone may embed a SiC resistor. It is highly unlikely, but one willing to attempt a replication may use this datasheet as a requirements specification for a (real) resistor manufacturer.
Please forgive this little trick of mine.
Best regards,


  • Anon2012_2014

    Agreed — no way to explain the heater element power with the paucity of data provided by the authors of a 50+ page report! I mean, come on Levi et al; do us all a favor and show us the voltage and current sampled at one time for the dummy and for one of your runs. This riddle is a waste of intelligent peoples’ time.

    • Obvious

      The riddle was a good one.
      There is only one good solution, and a whole bunch of mediocre ones. The mediocre ones all have some sort of semi-fatal flaw once all the calculations are run and the facts are examined and compared to the assumptions that form the various sub-par models.
      The good solution has another mystery buried in it. One that does beg for an explanation or clarification from the professors. Although it does not affect the results, the omission of an important fact regarding the test is unsettling to me.
      There are several good explanations possible for what was done, but I would like to hear the official response.
      The voltage is easily extractable from the available data, but obtaining the correct voltage for all runs requires knowing something else that was not reported.
      And the Joule heat still needs some fixing to be accurate for all runs. Even the resistance used isn’t quite right, although it is close. It would be handy to know if the wire was solid copper of not. I doubt it. That has a slight effect, but when we are talking about calculations using figures to the millionths of a ohm, it does affect accuracy somewhat.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Voltage: the PCE-830 has three obvious voltage probes plugged into it, presumably coming out of the power supply going to the PCE-830. So the 830 should have recorded the voltage along with the current at each logging interval (say once per second). No need to know or guess resistance — all that data should be there. The rest is unnecessary obscuration of the facts. This is annoying.

        • Obvious

          The data provided is sufficient.
          Obfuscation? Certainly.
          Obfuscation in order to avoid further obfuscation….? Possibly.
          Annoying? Absolutely.
          Illumination? Priceless.

  • Obvious

    For obtaining the active run current I did the following:
    Divide each Joule heat value by the dummy Joule heat W. (=1 for the dummy)
    Get the square root of the value above. (This makes a factor for I, rather than I^2)
    Multiply the above new factor by the dummy current (19.7 A) for each run.
    This gives the current for each active run.
    This result agrees exactly with the route used by others.
    For the parallel C2: (Rc2*Rc2)/(Rc2+Rc2)

  • Obvious

    Measurement or more likely a data handling error, IMO.
    The negative resistor is a COP out.

  • Obvious

    My improved version has 0.399 Ω for each resistor, once Joule heat is corrected properly, after extracting the current used for the original calculations.

    The effective delta resistance is 1.269 Ω “cold” and drops to 1.1777 Ω at peak temperature. This might be due to rounding the input Watts, so it may not actually drop, although it seems consistent. It could also be due to the copper cables heating up slightly.
    One volt reading and we probably could have put this bed ages ago. Probably the professors would have caught their error also when writing the report, and it would have been a non-issue….

  • Obvious

    I see what the professors did.
    Now I’m just just trying to rationalize why they did it.

    Check this out (using Run1):
    Extrapolated I for Run1 = 46.669 A ; therefore Ip = 46.669/sqrt(3) = 26.994 A
    Jhc1 = 3*((Ip^2)*(0.004375)) = 9.528804 W
    Jhc2 = 6*((Ip/2)^2)*(0.002811) = 3.061196 W
    Jhtotal = Jhc1 + Jhc2 =12.59 W
    Then Jhtotal * 3 = 37.77 W

    Using this same method, Jhdummy = 6.73 W
    But the line current is of course what they used (or seemed to describe) in the report for the dummy.
    The line current calculation for the dummy does give the same answer, if not multiplied by three.
    Now you have to decide what is the right one for the report…..

    Cheers!, Enjoy your weekend.
    Edit: It looks like the Jhtotal for the dummy must be multiplied by 3 to fix this up…

  • ecatworld

    A post on provides a link to this document from Kanthal about Silicon Carbide heating elements. On page 12 there is technical data that shows interesting resistance data at various temperatures:

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The purple curve in the diagram on page 12 shows a ratio of resistances between 450 and 1200/1400C of about 1.75/1.45. Not enough to explain the behaviour of the E-Cat’s coils, but it points in the right direction.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        By the way (question to the EE’s here): Since the coils have a certain inductance, the waveform should influence their apparent resistance. Would that influence be sufficient to explain a significant drop in case that the waveform has been different during the active run?

  • Andreas Moraitis

    This file (again provided by A. S.) could be entirely faked, but there might be a little chance that the request is genuine:

    We know of at least one email which has been sent to this address, and it is possible that there have been more. This is what investigating authorities call a “honeypot”.

  • J Storrs Hall

    Thanks to all (including the jokesters) for introducing an element of levity into the day … All these heating elements remind me of the old joke about how in the atomic age you will put the oven into the turkey instead of vice versa.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Yesterday, whilst we were politely trying to ignore this frivolous document and let it run its course, we decided to make a REAL three phase coil!

    See on our FaceBook

    • Ophelia Rump

      Wow, looks great, Woof!

    • LuFong

      Whether it works or not when the time comes and Rossi releases his E-Cats into the wild, MFMP will be all set to flood the Chinese market with cheap (?) imitations.

      Don’t forget to save room for the pumpkin pie.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The reasons are clear and have been discussed widely before on other threads. SiCarb India did not say impossible. Principally, it is possible to make in pretty much any shape you like and can have incredible range of properties depending on what additives it includes. Is it commercially viable – can a company be bothered? What I have learn’t over the past several weeks is that if you ask for an element from a furnace element manufacturer – they will listen to what you want and then they will try and sell you something they already make a lot of that they think will do the job.

    It was a thinking exercise and because of the wide discussion surrounding the impossibility of NTC – it was necessary to share the thinking, this is LOS not all answers are known in an instant.

    The fact that it was discussed and this clear spoof was made (I don’t know if you noticed my repeated caveats in my postings on this thread before the ‘outing’) led to the discovery of the very real patent for a 3 phase SiC winding. This was a very good outcome.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is so important in LOS for the crowd to contribute, and you get the credit for this along with the obvious joke pdf creator Andrea S.

    When I made the request to SiCarb to produce a 3 phase helix coil – I was just thinking of something that could actually be practical for wide scale screening, to know that this had already been patented and with great list of advantages (including filling the gaps with a ceramic) was helpful, in fact I have passed the patent along to SiCarb to help with the quote they are preparing.

    A unit like this would make it easy to insert a reactor core at the opposite end to the contacts and TC, really neat.

    Andrea S. – Keep thinking, and next time, try harder to make the joke plausible.

    • andrea.s

      HI Bob ,
      of course a professional would not fall for it, I know you did not. Though a company without a website was implausible (and to buy a domain for a wee joke was too much), a resistor with that shape is not impossible, and yes I was imagining to partly fill the gaps with ceramic.. Probably the 0.4 ohm is not achievable as doped SiC, not sure about 1.2 ohm.
      I think Ryan’s spec is more difficult to implement 🙂

      Keep up the fantastic work you are doing

      • Bob Greenyer

        Seriously though Andreas, you enabled the finding of a patent that is helping SiCarb india understand what we want for a *practical* high temperature element.

        We have always said, from the founding day of the MFMP, that for LENR, it does not matter who releases it first or how, it just matters that it happens.

        By the way, I’m not a professional in this, just a volunteer!

        Thanks again

  • there is good introduction in optix brochure

    one rule they gave is that

    and that in the IR range, most elements have transmissivity=0 (true in the 7.5um-13umfor alumin but not in the visible range)

    and the radiation received by the camera is thus the sum of emissivity*Tbody4+reflectivity*Tambiant4

  • Bob Greenyer

    Good news is – our fake core will have very even heat distribution

  • Bob Greenyer

    I am very happy to report that we knew enough to see that this was obviously a fake from the outset and said as much when it was posted to our Facebook page yesterday.

    I didn’t even bother sending an email or phoning them yesterday – because when you understand the industry this was rubbish.

    What helped us was that we had already been told by SiCarb India that such a product was impractical to make.

    However, we must sincerely thank the authors however, because their, quite obvious joke, led to the discovery of a very real patent supporting a request that we had already made to SiCarb to make a 3 Phase element in a Y (star) configuration. This could be very practical for wide scale material screening.

    Which was discovered by Anon 2012_2014.

    So A REALLY BIG thanks to him and the authors of what we called the “Spoof”.

    • by the way I found an interesting reference in that article

      there are some (Fe-Cr-Al) alloys that may work at 1400C but not with the 3x negative temperature coefficient

      maybe zirconia can be an alternative…

    • Ophelia Rump

      Bob, Have you tried shopping the specification out to manufacturers for pricing to see what their people say?

      • Bob Greenyer

        We had already asked for something like this from SiCarb, and they would rather we took a standard 3 phase element – element manufacturers are not to keen to get involved in research, Particularly the split at both ends made this kind of approach fragile.

        We had already requested they produce a quote for a Y – type, we have what we need to assess the Al2O3 thermal aspects of the report vs power in and tomorrow I should receive some “Fat” coils we can use to verify the visual questions in the report.

        After that, it would be good to have an affordable, robust (for shipping) and convenient element that can be used as a platform for wide-scale material screening, if we can get SiCarb india to produce the element, we will be in a strong position. Though one could argue only a single phase one is needed.

        Other materials that run at 1400+ºC for long periods of time in air are stupidly expensive!

        We past the patent for the 3 phase element (that matched our own request) onto SiCarb india for additional clarity.

        My business partner is in India and can receive sample pieces if they will make them.

  • Obvious

    Well, back to the drawing board……

  • Dr. Mike

    Unfortunate to see that the cited spec sheet now how a disclaimer saying that everything was made up to fit the Lugano report. So we still need an explanation from the authors.
    Dr. Mike

  • Finally the file have been edited by Andrea.s and it is a fake.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It comes now with the following description:

      “This spec was put in the form of a product datasheet, but there is no Charlotte-based SiC Industries LLC, this was a practical joke for the Cobraf Forum members, some of whom had challenged me to assess feasibility of a SiC resistor compatible with the Lugano report. It may serve as a tentative requirement spec for a (real) SiC resistor manufacturer, though likely not feasible due to the high doping required (assuming 0.01 ohm cm, the lowest advertised on advanced material websites, one gets roughly a 0.6mm thickness to achieve 0.4 ohm). However the temperature dependence was made up to match the Lugano report data: no real data behind.”

      • Anon2012_2014

        I suspected as much (that it might be a fake) when I couldn’t find anything about the company on the internet. The temperature dependence was too close to the Lugano report. Looked weird. The only interesting thing is the metadata on the pdf is from January 2014, but that could have been fakes as well as the name “SiC Industries LLC”.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          At least, Andrea S. did a good job. Even the mail address sent a reply. Now we must hope that MFMP will be able to reproduce the effect. (Can we be sure that they exist at all?…)

    • pelgrim108

      Cobraf … E-Catworld -> 1 – 0

      • Bob Greenyer

        You can see from our conversation yesterday on our Facebook site that we immediately saw it as a spoof document. This was because of level of understanding of the industry. I didn’t even report the document to the rest of the MFMP!

        • pelgrim108

          We all had our doubts about the realness of the document. I myself tried to prove it a forgery but failed to find something concreed. I didn’t see anybody call it a forgery before it was revealed by the maestro di scherzi himself.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Look at our Facebook page…

            Malcolm Lear first made us aware of the document yesterday @ 1.27pm CET

            This was noticed at 3.46pm CET yesterday

            At 3.48pm CET yesterday we replied “Is that a serious product? Like not a spoof one?”

            and then at 3.51 CET we mockingly posted to the informant “You are aware that the company makes custom trailers?”

            No effort was made by members of the MFMP to inform other members, it was seen as a fake document.

            When I spoke to Mats Lewan at 16:09 CET today about it I wrote

            “[27/11/2014 16:09:26] Bob W. Greenyer: This may be a spoof, a little bit of fun by someone


            But this is a real (expired patent) and I have earlier asked SilCarb of India to quote for production of something pretty much the same (before this patent came to light).


            [27/11/2014 16:10:10] Bob W. Greenyer: We are having to move the test with the Camera to 2nd Half of January because of the PI160 situation

            [27/11/2014 16:10:20] Bob W. Greenyer: but there is a lot we can do before then”

            We are VERY thankful to the spoof generator as it encouraged the finding of the old 3 phase patent (similar to the design we had already requested a quote on from SiCarb India) by Anon 2012_2014.

            • pelgrim108

              Now that you spell it out for me, (just found out that comments on facebook have hidden comments of their own ( I only go to facebook now and then to watch your replication progress)), I did manage to find your comments, where I could not earlier. So I must conceed that your actions where in line with a spoof document.
              You warned Ecat-world that it might be a spoof.
              “Whist we reserve judgement on the provenance and authenticity of this document, …” That means that you were conveying the message that you were not sure of its spoofnicity. So there it is. Nobody called it outright a spoof because nobody could find the hard evidence.

              • Bob Greenyer

                Valuable thinking was being done, it would have been disingenuous to stop that. It was a spoof to us.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is in Parallel, I asked for exactly this kind of structure from SilCarb india.

    Currently they are considering a wye (star) configuration that I sent them a drawing for as this would be easier, particularly from a structural point of view.

  • Charles

    Maybe someone can talk Silicon Carbide into publishing a schematic so we can stop speculating about WYE, DELTA w/GROUND SINGLE PHASE or blah blah blah.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This unit (if genuine) would be suitable for Delta as detailed in the report. It is the kind of design I first requested a quote for from SiCarb India, but they said it was not practical to make. I have suggested a unit that would be suitable for WYE connection, this would be more robust, easier to make and to connect to for wide scale distribution.

  • Gerrit

    Rossi has stated that the heating/reactor also contains Inconel, or is based on Inconel. I searched for “silicon carbide inconel” and found this paper which concludes sticking both together doesn’t work out very well.
    “Brazing of reaction-bonded silicon carbide and Inconel 600 with an iron-based alloy”

    • Dr. Mike

      The Lugano reactor does contain Inconel. From the report on page 3: “Three braided high temperature Inconel cables exit from each of the two caps: these are the resistors wound in parallel non over-lapping coils inside the reactor.” However, the report should have said: ‘Three braided high temperature Inconel cables exit from each of the two
      caps: these cables are connected to three resistors wound in parallel non over-lapping coils
      inside the reactor. The resistor material is proprietary.’ I don’t believe Rossi realized that by not telling the professors that the Inconel wires did not form the resistors that the final report would have an unexplained inconsistency in the electrical data.
      Dr. Mike

  • Gerard McEk

    It could well be that IH is using this element for the Hot cat (at least the Lugano version). As others say MFMP should seriously consider to use this for their tests.Good find Anderas, I am sure it makes the Lugano tests more acceptable, even for those who were puzzeled about the resistance properties!

  • Andre Blum

    Can someone explain the significance of this discovery? Is this good or bad news? What data from the report does it match? The data of the dry run? Was it andrea.s who posted the paper about the reversed clamps?

    • Freethinker

      News and news… It is a fact that pathoskeps who recently have frequented this site claim to be impossible. It means the joule heat “argument” has an explanation and can be ignored.

      It means that the input power measurements can be trusted, which it could be before too, but not for those who look at such things which not is and is not known, to draw their ill founded conclusions and loudly voice these opinions as evidence of wrong doing.

      So yes. It’s good.

      • kdk

        Not to mention the stupid amounts of transmutation replications. Yeah, this has already gone on for decades long enough. Nice words are way beyond patience compared to the lives sacrificed. Keep it up and their idiot genomes might be one of the few thousand left on Earth, good luck and have fun.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      As Freethinker says, it’s good news. The diagram in the document shows the relation between temperature and resistivity of the wire, which is in accordance with the values that have been inferred from the data in the report – regarding both the dummy run and the active run. And yes, this has apparently been posted by Andrea S.

      By the way, the “inverted clamp hypothesis” can already be excluded by the fact that under full load the difference between the readings of the two PCE-830’s (before and behind the control box) was identical with the nominal power consumption of the box (see p. 5 of the report). This idea has been brought up by US_Citizen71. However, the new document makes it possible to explain the observed resistance drop in an easy way, without introducing exotic assumptions.

    • LuFong

      This is very good news and strengthens the report in my view. It explains some inconsistencies with the data and the statement that the resistors were braided Inconel cables.

      It also means the the MFMP []=Project Dog Bone=[] may be in a much better position to check other aspects of the report. I wonder how much these heater elements might cost?

      • Gerrit

        If the spec explains the “inconsistencies” then they weren’t inconsistencies to begin with. It was just that you couldn’t explain at that point how the data came about and therefore you concluded the professors made measuring mistakes.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Whist we reserve judgement on the provenance and authenticity of this document, other suppliers will provide SiC based elements for $150 a piece, which is well under an order of magnitude cheaper than some of the other options we had been looking at that would reach this temperature reliably for long periods of time in air.

      • Bob Greenyer

        as suspected

  • kdk

    I’ve been wondering about containing multiple cells/reactors in a compact way such that their magnetic or heat resonance is generally similar to a car’s engine (ie pistons firing in order to maximize power) with the energy from one lending itself to another on its downstroke and stoking the upstroke of another cell.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    If I had known that Frank would quote this comment, I would have paid more attention to the wording. Actually, I meant that the resistance drops to 1/3.5 of its initial value, or by the factor 3.5.

    Interestingly, 3.5 is almost exactly the average COP. This would certainly be stuff for new discussions, if the active run had been carried out with a constant input. But fortunately, there have been two phases (day 1-10 and 11-32) with different input settings. The average COPs for them come to 3.18 and 3.66.

  • Patrick Ellul

    This document is very suspicious. It looks like a website, yet it escapes the claws of search engines. @Frank why don’t you give that phone number a call, and drop an email to that inbox, see if you get anywhere. ALso, does anyone have the link to the cobraf forum thread that exposed this document?

  • Mark Szl

    Would there be any reason to keep this out of the report to protect IP?

    • Bob Greenyer

      At the MFMP, we question the provenance and authenticity of this document – only because we seek truth. What it shows is many things that are plausible with respect to a SiC element which we have asked people to consider – but that is not a guarantee that this is not just a bit of fun. Whatever, we are working with the Indian company on a SiC element to meet the specifications, as for length etc, they have already said it is possible to do in a standard trident format, we have however requested them quote on the basis of three parallel intertwined coils similar to that shown in the patent identified by Anon2012_2014 below.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Item is substantially similar to the item in this 1973 patent: (since expired)

    Patent is licensed originally to this Squared R Element Company Inc.

    They are still in business although I see no spiral three phase items in their catalog, I see plenty of three phase and plenty of spiral items (including a double wound so you could power it from one side only). I am sure that this is an easy custom job.

    I can’t find the Sic Industries LLC in Charlotte, in the NC or DE secretary of state registry. There is a SIC Industries in AZ, but I believe it is unrelated — they fabricate larger parts out of steel. It looks like a welding shop to me.

    The pdf was created in January by SiC Industries LLC. I’d like to know where the contributor got it from. Charlotte is interesting because that state is where IH is from.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is the kind of element I am getting a quote from SiCarb India, It would be connected in star with no neutral. The advantage is there would be twice the resistance because of the connection type.

      I have been speculating that contacts at one end may be fake as most of the photos of hot wires are from the other end.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I particularly like this phrase

        “The slots between the spirals can be filled 2,556,679 6/1951 C zcpek 338/296 with a ceramic insulating materiaL”

        “A silicon carbide, three-phase heating element having a hollow, generally cylindrical body formed with three [56] References cued circumferentially spaced legs comprising the cold end UNITED STATES PATENTS section and three spaced, parallel spirals constituting 1,450,725 4/1923 Hodson 338/269 the hot zone section and terminating in a common 1,933,123 10/1933 gfl d—- X juncture. The slots between the spirals can be filled 2,556,679 6/1951 C zcpek 338/296 with a ceramic insulating materiaL 3,057,936 10/1962 HIll 13/25 3,336,431 8/1967 Biddulph 13/25 6 Claims, 6 Drawing Figures meant.”

        The advantage with this configuration also is that there is no need for return wires when it is part of a bigger heating element.

      • Anon2012_2014


        A few comments that you may or may not find useful:

        First, Rossi shows a delta, not a Wye (“Y”). My first thought was that the only reason he went for a three phase setup is that European wall power for high power machines is three phase. Now he sends it through a triac power regulator; i.e. this is the simplest way for him to draw 1200 to 1600 watts from the wall in Italy or Sweden.

        Second, this is the company that is the successor to the 3 phase SiC patent I showed you above: It’s founder was the inventor. They are based in New York. I doubt they are any cheaper than your Indian supplier, but they have made these before. I don’t see any spiral three phase units with electrodes at both end in their Starbar catalog, but I am assuming that they manufactured them before around the time of the patent as they probably needed a spiral three phase unit at the time for a European (power) based application; and hence the patent.

        Third, is that, although we cannot know for sure, I see no reason that you need a three phase heater at your U.S. labs. In iSquared’s catalog, the double spiral is clearly made so that the electricity only needs to be supplied (single phase or DC) on one end. Otherwise, single spiral (single phase power) may do the trick for you. This is cheaper than having a custom element made. Also, you may be able to shrink the length of the reactor to get the same power per linear cm without having to drive 1200 watts in.

        Good luck Bob,


        • Bob Greenyer


          We are actually looking at single phase windings that will be much cheaper and able to go to 1250ºC enough for someone to screen materials. We have been quoted as little as $22 here in Czech

          Standard single phase SiC element would suffice also and be able to run at the higher temperatures.

          But to give people the whole picture we need to see what options there are and whilst it may take time and intellect, there is very little cash spent in establishing the state of the art.

  • SG

    In a friendly debate with Dr. Mike in the previous thread, I stated:

    “Is it possible that a single SiC spiral heating element is present
    within the reactor? Yes. Would having a single resistor connected to
    three phase power lines make sense? I don’t know, but maybe.”

    Interesting to see evidence of such a possibility before our very eyes.

    • Dr. Mike

      This heating element would not only fit, it is probably the data sheet for the Hot-Cat heater. The Lugano authors can correct this portion of the report by just saying that a 3-phase SiC heater element was used. The data sheet says this is a 3 phase coil, not a single phase SiC coil. You can see the 3 phases in the diagram where the light gray wires above and below the black wire are the other two phases.
      There are still one or two other questions that I would like to see answered. This heating element’s maximum temperature spec is 1650 C. Why didn’t the authors at least run the dummy run up to somewhere in the 1250-1400C range? My other question will probably require a thermal engineer to answer. From specs on this heating element, it appears that the maximum power for this element is 1250W with a maximum temperature of 1650C. Would it be correct to assume that this 1650C max temperature is reached at about 1250W? If so, this heating coil should reach a temperature of 1400C at an applied power of 1150W +/-50W. The second part of the active run had an input power of 900-920W. Why did the reactor need a calculated ~2300W extra power produced from LENR reactions to reach 1400C when the same temperature could have been reached by just applying 200-300W of electrical power to the heating coils?
      Dr. Mike

      • Anon2012_2014

        Dr. Mike,

        I’ve been thinking about that. The maximum temperature is probably not the maximum that the unit would put out (if it was in a small insulated chamber), but instead probably the temperature where some portion of the element would fail (i.e. an internal short, or a structural failure). At 1250 watts the unit will run cooler if it is in air with a fan blowing on it, and much hotter if it is in a small insulated chamber with reflecting foil on both sides.

        • Dr. Mike

          Do you have any estimate of what the temperature might be for the heater coils covered in alumina with no fan? I guess you also have to add the little fins on the alumina coating.
          Dr. Mike

      • LCD

        1400 C is on the surface of the alumina. We assume the core is much much hotter, that is the fuel core.

        But this brings up an interesting point. Why is the internal cylinder 20mm in diameter. I mean it is just 1 gram of powder. I feel like that is mostly empty space, for what. What else is in there?

        • Dr. Mike

          The core can’t be too much hotter or all of the Ni powder would have melted.. We don’t know the internal diameter of the cylinder. I calculated the thickness of the alumina cylinder based on the total weight of the reactor and the density of alumina. For alumina that is on the low side of its range in density the thickness of the alumina would only be about 2mm or so. (I need to, re-do this calculation based on the 4cm end cylinders not being solid except for the end 1 cm in length on each end. Also if the coils really had been Inconel, about 30 gram of total weight would have had to have been subtracted reactor weight to calculate the net weight of the alunina.) There would be a whole lot of empty space! I would guess that the reason the Hot-Cat is designed this way is because it is designed around the 3-phase heater.
          Dr. Mike

        • Bob Greenyer

          There will be the Alumina reactor core inside.

          • LCD

            Well how big is the actual hole the powder goes into?

            • Bob Greenyer

              approximately 4mm as per the drawings on our proposal and based off the Lugano report.

              • LCD

                Okay that’s still pretty big compared to the powder charge

      • Bob Greenyer

        That is the maximum surface temperature. The volume and surface area of the Lugano reactor is FAR larger than this heater element and so would be able to radiate and convect more energy.

  • Anon2012_2014

    The dimensions roughly fit the interior dimensions of the Lugano ECAT.

    And while we are at it, could not the shadows on the picture of the operating ECAT be the gaps between the SiC coil windings?

    Finally, I am trying to look at some relationship between the intensity of the glow — it is brightest where the alumina shell appears thinnest in casting. I would have expected it to be brighter on the bottom of the cylinder where the 1 gram (about half teaspoon full) of fuel should be resting.

    • Dr. Mike

      You might be right that the shadows in Figures 12a and 12b are shadows between the SiC coil windings. I also would have expected the bottom of the alumina cylinder to be much hotter than the top.
      Dr. Mike

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have already shown evidence of hotspots on the top on a levels adjusted photos from the report.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Light will refract and concentrate in the gaps between the coils, I may try to simulate this in a 3D rendering package using full spectral rendering techniques. To see an example of this “light concentration” effect look at the photo of the 2nd dog bone cast in the furnace at 1200ºC where it contacts the ground.

  • ivanc

    I this product and alloy???? coud you put 3 of them in phisical parallel and connect then in 3phase?

    • SG

      Based on the drawing, it appears that it is a single SiC heating element with built-in terminals for 3-phase power. So I don’t see why you would want to connect 3 of them in parallel. Am I missing something?

      • Dr. Mike

        You are missing something. If you look at the diagram carefully, you can see the light gray wires above and below the black wire at the end of the coils. These represent the other two windings. Also, follow the black wire from one end. You can see its pitch as being every third coil. You can not connect all three phases of a 3-phases supply to the same node (i.e. an end of a single resistor). Each supply phase needs to be connected to a separate coil.
        Dr. Mike

        • SG

          That is why I was questioning ivanc’s suggestion of hooking three of these up in parallel. I think ivanc was missing something, not me. In any case, on closer inspection of this document, it looks pretty fishy. No corresponding website, etc.

          • Dr. Mike

            Ivanc is saying the coils are physically parallel to each other but they are connected in a delta electrical configuration (each resistor is connected across one phase of the supply). The data sheet appears to me to be a product that someone special ordered (Rossi perhaps) and the company decided to offer it as a product or as just as an example of what they can build.
            Dr. Mike

      • Anon2012_2014

        I think it has three heating elements that are spiral wound, i.e. one starts at 120 degrees, one starts at 240, and one at 360. They never need to intersect each other from one end of the element to the other this way. See the Rossi paper schematic resistors (elements).

      • ivanc

        Yes, the ecat should have 3 of them physically in parallel and electrically in delta

  • Anon2012_2014

    Can’t wait to see Dogbone II run at 1400 C.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Neither can we, neither can we… we are working as fast as we can and all the help from you guys is really inspiring and motivating.

  • bachcole

    So, can we put that argument to bed. I can getting tired of deleting emails about it.