Steorn Orbo, suddenly said not to be supplying power forever.

Don't you get bored just typing the same thing over and over?

************************************************************. The problem with Mary Yugo likes is, that if Andrea Rossi will be vindicated and proven right, nobody will care about their opinions anymore. And if Rossi will not prove it, nobody will care about some Yugo anyway from the same reason.

*Doxxing Comment Removed. I don't care how 'well known' the information is, there will be NO doxxing. Alan.

Quote from Zeus46

I highly doubt that Thomas Clarke, an experienced engineer, would use Q to represent COP.

heat flux is something entirely different* you loon. And it's denoted with a small 'q', not 'Q'.

And you claim to be a world class expert in calorimetry!!!!!

* As stated in your Wikipedia quote in the post directly above this. Do you even understand what you're copy/pasting?

Display More

Looking at his Lugano comment I don't think TC committed any egregious symbol-misuse errors. Though he might have done. He uses B for bolometer (spectral) emissivity, R for expected bolometer output as weighted radiance, a function of emissivity and temperature, T for temperature (in Kelvin of course), greek epsilon for emissivity, P for power, F for shape (AKA view) factor, C and K for various constants. Some of these letters are pretty arbitrary.

In specific subject areas there are symbol-use conventions, like Q for an amount of energy in thermodynamics or the peakiness (non-technical but descriptive) of a second-order resonance. Sometimes these conventions cover many subjects - like A for area. But these are hardly ever universal even within one topic because there are often competing different conventions (W for work or gate width, E for energy instead of Q, L as Avogadro's constant or gate length) in different subjects. When solving real-world problems we are not working purely within one subject area (at least many engineers cannot afford to do this - and the interdisciplinary stuff is most fun) so sticking to consistent conventions is sometimes impossible.

Adherence to specific conventions tells you something (maybe) about the background of a given writer, just like their use of i vs j for sqrt(-1) ; something about which I am now personally completely schizophrenic since I've used i a lot as a mathematician and j a lot as an engineer. I think I still prefer i but that is because it is neater to write in exponents!

What matters is the accuracy of the equations, not whether someone uses the same terminology as others. That is particularly true of the silly kWh/h thing. This notation is used by some electric power engineers. It has little real merit, being equivalent to kW, but sort of implies an average power measured over some period of time with an energy meter and therefore is not completely contentless. Just as VA is used as a unit of (complex) reactive power instead of W as the unit of real power. And note that W as a unit (Watt) sits uncomfortably with W as (sometimes) a symbol for energy. Whether somone uses something like kWh/h or not is a stylistic matter and such things should not affect our view of people's competence.

Thus my reason for viewing Rossi as either very incompetent (or perhaps deceitful) in many technical areas comes not from things like kWh/h but from his other recorded strong views which are provably and badly wrong, although in some restricted circumstances each could be viewed as correct. such half-wrong views are more dangerous than fully wrong statements:

• Control experiments provide no information and so are not necessary
• Power can be measured by measuring voltage and current and multiplying
• AC has no pole so the orientation of measurement of AC current does not matter

I've picked three stated views that have made a key contribution to Rossi's test setups delivering high apparent COP. They are easily detected by technical people who pay attention to what Rossi says and join dots.

Quote from maryyugo

OK, so what exactly is he currently doing for Andrea Rossi? And how do we know? My understanding is that, at most, Elforsk provided Rossi with some travel funds and that was more than a year ago. Do you know (not guess) different?

A lot of the rumours around here (Alan will confirm whether what he says in this instance is rumour or fact validated by Olofsson) come from RossiSays. Unfortunately there seem to be quite a number of people - perhaps the Swedes, or Levi - who believe RossiSays and distribute them as credible rumours without providing specific source. The thing to remember is that while RossiSays usually have some distant relationship to reality they are usually at best strong misinterpretations or at worst plain 100% wrong.

Quote

And if Rossi will not prove it, nobody will care about some Yugo anyway from the same reason.

Quote

It's hilarious that Zeus thinks

You can't tell the difference between me and Zephir? Despite our very different avatars? Oh dear Mary, I think you've truly lost it.

Quote from maryyugo

Apparently you are annoyed that not everyone believes the fairy tales you favor.

Why Zeus and people like him/her are drawn to free energy scams is a fascinating question and worthy of study.

You should take a leaf out of Huxley's book. He is sensible enough to understand that you can't ever know the mind of others. Maybe you are some kind of mindreader - but I doubt it, seeing as how you clearly don't even bother to read other posts I've written - otherwise you wouldn't be making such claims. Bear in mind that supporting free energy scams, and thinking that you are a plonker, can be mutually exclusive.

Quote from Alan Smith

Typing? Just cut and paste from an extensive back-catalogue.

Quote from maryyugo

My responses are just that.

Quote from Zeus46

I highly doubt that Thomas Clarke, an experienced engineer, would use Q to represent COP.

They're not unrelated in the right context. Q as a ratio of powers (or energies) is used in hot fusion, and it's called the "fusion energy gain factor". Here's an unsolicited lesson in COP, Q, and ignition in power generation technologies. Enjoy:

--

1. Refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pumps

In refrigeration or air conditioning, COP = Qc/W, where Qc is the heat removed from the cold reservoir, and W is the input work, usually electrical energy used to run a compressor. In a heat pump it's COP = Qh/W, where Qh is the heat delivered to the hot reservoir.

--

2. Overunity devices

Cold fusion and other "overunity" fantasies have adopted COP to mean (as nearly as one can determine) COP = Qout/Uin, where Qout is the total heat delivered to a reservoir, and Uin is the total input energy in any form, usually electrical energy for electrolysis or for resistive heat.

COP > 1 indicates generation of energy within the device attributed to nuclear reactions in the case of cold fusion. This is often claimed, but not yet accepted outside the cold fusion community.

(It's not entirely unambiguous, because the electrical energy is often generated from burning fuel at an efficiency of 1/3 or so, so if one compares output thermal energy with the amount of input thermal energy necessary to make the electricity, one should really multiply the input by 3. But that's a quibble, often abbreviated "Q")

--

3. Hot fusion

In hot fusion, the "fusion energy gain factor" is represented by Q = Pfus/Pheat, where Pfus is the power produced by fusion, and Pheat is the thermal power absorbed by the plasma required to maintain the plasma in a steady state.

Q > 0 indicates generation of power by fusion. This first controlled fusion plasma (Q > 0) was achieved in 1958.

Q = 1 is called breakeven, even though it does not represent ignition (self-sustaining plasma). Since much of Pfus escapes (in the form of neutrons for DT fusion), Q > 10 (some say 20) is required for the plasma to sustain itself. Q=1 has been reached (or at least claimed) in 2012. Ignition (Q > 10) is still a dream, but is expected with ITER some time in the 20s. (Maybe sooner if NIF gets enough funding.)

--

4. The relation between Q and COP

The connection between hot fusion's Q and cold fusion's COP is not simple. But since all the input energy in hot fusion experiments eventually ends up as heat somewhere, the total generated power would be Pin+Pfus, and so

COP = (Pin+Pfus)/Pin = 1 + Q*Pheat/Pin.

Therefore, if Q > 0, the COP > 1. So, using the cold fusion definition, COP > 1 is achieved in essentially every hot fusion experiment.

But Pheat/Pin -- the efficiency with which energy can be delivered to a plasma -- is a very small number in hot fusion, definitely less than 10^-3, and maybe as low as 10^-5. But no one in the business really cares about Pin, because once ignition is achieved, Pin is no longer needed. That is, the plasma sustains itself, and an arbitrary amount of power can be generated. That's the ultimate goal.

(Now, it's not quite that simple because the output is limited by accessible fuel, and in inertial confinement fusion (ICF), even complete consumption of the fuel in a pellet will not generate as much energy as required to ignite that pellet. Somewhat different limitations exist in magnetic confinement, but the point is, ignition is not the final solution. Still, once ignition is achieved in principle, ways to scale up the fuel delivery are expected to be rather more pedestrian type engineering problems.)

So, that's why the COP is a pretty useless figure of merit in hot fusion, because it gives no indication of how close we are to the all important ignition. For that Q is a much more useful metric.

Likewise, in cold fusion, far more attention should be paid to what is needed to reach self-sustained operation (zero input). Not only would that make a far more convincing demonstration, but a self-sustained device would finally be more useful than a heat pump. The problem is, to identify a metric that indicates the proximity of ignition requires knowledge of the process, and no one seems to have a clue. Even so, if it's just a matter of maintaining a certain temperature as has been claimed recently, then a COP > 2 should make ignition possible. And that's why no one should believe a claim of (thermal to thermal) COP > 2 if it still needs an input.

Interesting stuff re hot fusion

Quote from Louis Reed

Even so, if it's just a matter of maintaining a certain temperature as has been claimed recently, then a COP > 2 should make ignition possible. And that's why no one should believe a claim of (thermal to thermal) COP > 2 if it still needs an input.

This blanket rule neglects issues relating to stability. If a putative LENR process is highly unstable and fluctuates wildly with temperature and possibly requires different temperatures at different points in its progression, it may not be possible to keep the temperature at the right level using passive methods (i.e., no electrical input). One need not rule out a claim of COP > 2 if an input is still required.

Tear-down and Testing of Orbo O-Cube Cells (Greg Daigle) The document source and Disqus discussion is here, observations and tests are underway..

I'm sure, that McCarthy's technology works as demonstrated - but the secretive last-minute potting of Orbo-Cube (without subsequent QA tests) destroyed the cooling and proper function of cheap Chinese regulation circuits. The heating during epoxy polymerization could also partially destroy the (polarization of) electret cells. According to F. Ackland's observations, the polarization of cells with external battery can restore their function at least partially.

There is no gel or liquid electrolyte in the cells. There are polymer film layers and a layer of the black film, all rolled tightly. The black film flakes quite easily. The composition of the "magic film" is not known, though Shaun has said it is based on materials used in super-capacitors. My guess it's mixture of rather common electret wax and graphite flakes (1, 2). Maybe the pyrolytic carbon dust used in supercapacitors has been actually used. You may imagine the spaces between graphite layers like the tiny diodes, which rectify the thermal voltage fluctuations. IMO Steorn Orbo-Cube technology is most similar to these graphite/silicone-silicone carbide cells.

voltage recovery of Steorn blue cell clearly shows the discharge and the voltage rising in discrete steps. It is viewable here

Dielectric absorption led to other articles on voltage rebound, which looks similarly.

The recharge profile of the cells is quite unique and Shaun had previously mentioned “spikes” and “steps” in his postings. Spike heights is about 16.82 mV at -6.7ºC outdoor temperature. It resembles the materials demonstrating a Quantum Hall Effect. However, there are differences. Each step up in voltage in the Orbo’s material always appears to be the same amount. The same can be said for the spikes. The delta voltage changes only between measures of the half cell vs the full cell. The change does not diminish over time as with the QHE material. The stepping that I have seen reported in papers on the QHE (see illustration below) show not only the regular steps (possibly Landau levels) but also some of the spiking before each jump.

The other difference is that our material’s spikes are the height of the steps, whereas in the paper the QHE material the spikes are only a fraction of the height of the steps. The film of the Orbo cells may not be as ultra thin as those in the cited paper, the individual voltage spikes generated may represent an averaging of the tunneling of the electrons and a build up of charge. This repeats for many spikes until all of the material becomes charged to the next level and the next Landau level is reached. Once sufficient spikes have charged the material in aggregate, it reaches that next quantum level and after a period of time the charge
again builds up with spikes of the same change in voltage going up to the next level.

You got my answer here.