I've just realised that if my no-LENR output power conclusion is sound, then Rossi is in serious trouble trying to explain the Ni62 ash. Could be the end of him.
On 13 October 2014 20:11, Robert Lynn <[email protected]> wrote: > done, not much point in doing more exhaustive calculations without better > knowledge of construction and dimensions, but the big guess with regard to > wire area doesn't make much if any difference considering nature of black > body cavity receiving surface that is inner wall of finned tube. I think > the conclusion that the finned wall is only around 1000°C is pretty strong, > so I'll be interested to see what if any response or objections are stacked > up. > > I am hugely excited about the prospects of LENR - and actually stand to do > very well commercially from it, but this first-principles evaluation of the > Lugano test makes it look like it was another bust with at best very low > COP :( > > A curse upon perpetrators of poor calorimetry! > > On 13 October 2014 18:46, Marcus Haber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Robert! >> >> Why dont u go over to >> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/722-Ask-questions-to-the-Working-Group-ECAT-long-term-test/?postID=1386#post1386 >> and tell the professors doing the test about ur concerns regarding the >> temperature measurement? >> But maybe it would be helpful to do some real calculations first. Coming >> with crude ones is probably not enough... >> >> Regards >> Marcus >> >> *Gesendet:* Montag, 13. Oktober 2014 um 07:11 Uhr >> *Von:* "Robert Lynn" <[email protected]> >> *An:* [email protected] >> *Betreff:* [Vo]:E-cat Lugano demo probably had no output. >> Appears that there was an inner reactor vessel wrapped with helical >> resistance wires (hence shadows) from size of wires and necessary wall >> thicknesses this vessel is likely around 12mm diameter. >> >> Inner wall area of outer finned tube about Ø18mm, 0.2m long .0113m² >> >> Inconel metal resistance wires can only survive a maximum of about 1350°C >> without melting (actually probably lower than that over a month long period) >> >> From photo 12a/12b the wires appear to be covering less than half of the >> core reactor vessel, giving them an area of (estimate) .005m² (this is only >> a guess) We know that they dissipate 900W of electricity, and inconel has >> emissivity of around 0.7. >> >> In order for finned tube inner wall to absorb 900W from the wires at >> 1350°C they would need to be around 1000°C. At that temperature they would >> also transfer approximately 900W to the external environment via radiation >> and convection. >> >> If the inner reactor was any hotter or adding any heat to the system then >> it would necessarily increase the finned tube wall temperature to increase >> dissipation to environment, that would in turn increase the wire >> temperature greatly, including a further bump from the radiative heat >> transfer from reactor to resistance wires, increasing their temperature to >> far above the point of failure. >> >> These numbers are only approximate (this is a crude calculation only), >> but I think that quantitatively at least it appears that there is a strong >> possibility that this demo was producing little if any power, based on >> pretty simple physical constraints. And most certainly not the 3.8 COP >> claimed. >> >> As to the explanation for the high temp readings - I suspect the IR >> camera was picking up the colour of the resistance wires and inner reactor >> vessel body through the partially transparent alumina to give an >> artificially high temperature reading. >> >> >
