|
After a third read, I am having serious doubts about the validity of the Lugano report test methods, data gathering and conclusions regarding the Rossi E-CAT supposedly yielding COP>3.
Here are some of the key points of concern:
1) A COP > 3 should have allowed the input power to be reduced to near zero or at least a third of what it was and still maintain the 1400C, this is not the case, and even with the supposed COP>3, the temperature does not soar way beyond the 1400C provided by the 900 Watts input. Remember they are controlling input current , therefore power, and allowing final temperature to stabilize where it will .
2)We see that input power of 810 Watts produced 1260 C. Then power was then set to 900 Watts and temperature went to 1400 C. From this they observed by imaging and concluded that an extra 700 Watts were being released. But the input power and stabilized temperatures are not unreasonable for the extra 90 Watts increase in power input. A plot of the dummy device (input power vs. stabilized temperature) up to 1400C would have been a good comparison, but was not done.
3) The dummy test / calibration of imaging cameras was done at a much lower temperature, then assumed to be correct for the higher temperature. There was no comparison with a dummy test run at 1400 C. Where is the equivalent to table 7 using the dummy test?
4)Wattages are calculated based on imaging from various parts of the device, then the numbers are added together to get Wattages in excess of 2300. This, to me, is just wrong and the reason they were able to get the high COP numbers. Splitting the test chamber into all those zones, imaging and calculating convection and radiation losses for each zone in an attempt to derive wattage per zone is possibly introducing large errors. (see point 6)
5) The use of three phase power, 100 Amps at 7 to 9 volts (4 to 5 volts per phase) is just an overly complicated and lossy way to get 700 to 900 watts of input power into the target area, when they could have used thinner Inconel heating wire, with a higher resistance on a single phase setup operating directly off the line without the need for step down transformers etc. Their method creates a lot of heating in the wires and connections well beyond the target area because of the high amperes drawn, creates glowing wires well outside the target area, and allows for more imaging, tallying and possible obfuscation.
6) Stabilizing the system by controlling current input is the wrong approach, they should have been controlling final temperature, then they could have easily seen if there was excess heat by observing a drop in input power with fuel vs. without fuel as I have suggested. No need for thermal imaging and adding up of supposed wattages along various zones and parts of the device including leadwires. All the parts of the system have a variable loss to the environment based on temperature, the proof of the pudding is that it will require a certain input power to supply all those losses and maintain the core at the target temperature. A sudden drop of input power while maintaining target temperature would be proof positive of extra heat supplied by the fuel. This can be easily graphed against a dummy run under the same temperature target conditions.
I am open to comments and criticism of my observations, but I would have performed the test in a far more simple and straightforward manner as I outlined earlier.
I would like to believe the burning of metals in a nuclear manner with some energy release is possible, but the Lugano report is to me unconvincing proof.
« Last Edit: 2014-10-14, 17:38:56 by ION »
---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
|
Author
Topic: Independent lab results testing E-cat device - very impressive! (Read 38623 times)
