Could you try that with a DC-DC buck converter in the middle? They run at about 250 kHz and might flummox a PSU a bit. Just 10V in and 12V out probably for test of concept.
Cheers,
P
The Playground
-
-
Now with the 10 watt unit, he must have developed his own electronics. This should reduce the cost of the SKLEP mini
Ludicrous. Rossi has no ability to develop anything but scams. And he has no team to do it for him. Give evidence otherwise before refuting please. Name one employee.
-
Once again, Alan F. silences shrill voices through hands-on experimental verification. Not saying Rossi has what he says, but I'm saying that the skeptopaths are irrational.
Alan has access to one of Rossi's devices to verify?
-
Rossi did not permit Frank to look into any output from the SKLEP reactor. This is understandable since in the last demo that Rossi did, he showed the output of the QuarkX reactor on an oscilloscope that showed in detail how the reaction was produced, maintained, and the output generated. In order to protect his IP, Rossi will not permit all this info to be revealed again.
Concealing the output is only understandable if the device doesn't work. His QuarkX demo showed nothing useful, since that didn't work either. The only part of the QX working was that secret switch Rossi got caught toggling when testing the 1 ohm resistor. Nobody replicated anything from this supposedly important oscilloscope data. The demo was a dud, the skled demo worse, this latest livestream worse yet. The remaining believers should donate their brains to gullibility researchers.
-
Concealing the output is only understandable if the device doesn't work. His QuarkX demo showed nothing useful, since that didn't work either. The only part of the QX working was that secret switch Rossi got caught toggling when testing the 1 ohm resistor. Nobody replicated anything from this supposedly important oscilloscope data. The demo was a dud, the skled demo worse, this latest livestream worse yet. The remaining believers should donate their brains to gullibility researchers.
time will tell.
-
time will tell.
Another 40 years (since Petrol Dragon)?
-
-
The stupid SKLep won’t even light a turn signal lamp. LOL
-
The stupid SKLep won’t even light a turn signal lamp. LOL
Emotions 'runnin hot
-
Emotions 'runnin hot
Only just barely paying attention…
He seems desperate with the puppet army, although the pain in Germany can be seen in several probably real posters.
How are you doing these days? -
Only just barely paying attention…
He seems desperate with the puppet army, although the pain in Germany can be seen in several probably real posters.
How are you doing these days?Doing well Para, and hope the same for you.
-
Doing well Para, and hope the same for you.
Good to hear.
I’m a bit busy with a project that seems to never end and keeps expanding. I like that, but it takes a lot of energy and focus so now I can barely keep up with new stuff over here. -
Display More
Jed - this is an argument that can never end. It (the argument) is not rational, though difficult for either of us to stop - we both share a terrier-like inclination to go on asserting are points when they seem not to be understood by others.
I could nit-pick and point out your over-generalisations above for rhetorical effect. I won't unless you ask for that.
I could point out - and you would agree but give less weight to than me - file drawer effect.
The real difference between us, which I have noted a few times and you not acknowledged, is our attitude towards the interpretation of experimental data. You believe that an unbiassed expert, looking at the LENR data, would be convinced that LENR existed. I don't. And that stems from you being more certain than me about things. I am only every that certain about maths, or physics that is essentially maths made manifest (in which case of course I still know it can be only an approximation). I am never so certain about anomalous results.
So I look at things and start to give them credence either when there is proof so clear (and of course so replicable) that it would easily convince the scientific community. Till them I don't assume they are true - nor do i think that assumption would help me to work out whether they are true of not.
These generalisations from you or me don't help. And when we look at details - as with F&P and foamgate - we disagree. I'm not trying to continue those arguments.
Paranoia may be a natural response to unpredictability
A new study from Yale University has found that uncertainty and unpredictability can trigger paranoia.
A recent study investigated the origins of paranoia.
To be paranoid is to believe that other people are operating with malicious intentions. The old joke goes: “Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me.” In some cases, these concerns may be valid, but when they are not, paranoia could be a symptom of a mental health condition.
However, a new study from Yale University in New Haven, CT, suggests that paranoia may also be a response to confusing circumstances.
-
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
-
I see the LENR reaction as far more consequential to science than it is currently believed to be. One of the most impactful questions to be resolved is to determine where the energy comes from that the LENR reaction is harvesting. Most here on this site beleive that the energy source is the fusion reaction, but Rossi says that the energy source is the vacuum. If Rossi is correct, then this demo will reveal one way or another the proper source of the energy that is being produced to power the light.
If the energy is being produced by a matter to energy conversion process, then it's natural to expect that the energy production of the power source will decrease over time which will certainly occur as the "fuel" is gradually consumed.
But if the energy that is being produced comes from an inexhaustible source through a catalytic process then the energy generated will not decrease over time.
The most stupendous result of this demo is to show that the energy source that feeds the LENR reaction does in fact come from the vacuum. This result will be reflected in the observing no drop in COP over the year long running time of this demo since there will be no fuel consumption involved. If this demo runs for the total 100,000 hour running time, then the source of the energy will be certainly revealed. We would expect that 5 watt/hours for 100,000 hours would require the production of 500 kilowatt hours of energy to be produced would impact the production of energy but a reaction that does not require fuel would not show any sign of fuel consumption.
We have not seen the watts shown on the watt meter move off the 0 reading during the entirety of the demo so far.
We have not seen any reduction in COP so far reflected in the demo. If this behavior holds true over time, then this demo would certainly prove fatal to the fusion meme.
-
Display More
I see the LENR reaction as far more consequential to science than it is currently believed to be. One of the most impactful questions to be resolved is to determine where the energy comes from that the LENR reaction is harvesting. Most here on this site beleive that the energy source is the fusion reaction, but Rossi says that the energy source is the vacuum. If Rossi is correct, then this demo will reveal one way or another the proper source of the energy that is being produced to power the light.
If the energy is being produced by a matter to energy conversion process, then it's natural to expect that the energy production of the power source will decrease over time which will certainly occur as the "fuel" is gradually consumed.
But if the energy that is being produced comes from an inexhaustible source through a catalytic process then the energy generated will not decrease over time.
The most stupendous result of this demo is to show that the energy source that feeds the LENR reaction does in fact come from the vacuum. This result will be reflected in the observing no drop in COP over the year long running time of this demo since there will be no fuel consumption involved. If this demo runs for the total 100,000 hour running time, then the source of the energy will be certainly revealed. We would expect that 5 watt/hours for 100,000 hours would require the production of 500 kilowatt hours of energy to be produced would impact the production of energy but a reaction that does not require fuel would not show any sign of fuel consumption.
We have not seen the watts shown on the watt meter move off the 0 reading during the entirety of the demo so far.
We have not seen any reduction in COP so far reflected in the demo. If this behavior holds true over time, then this demo would certainly prove fatal to the fusion meme.
How much power does the power supply consume with, and without, the tiny SKlep attached (operating the unspecified led).
Why does he not do this with a standard rated, name brand, 55W incandescent headlamp and using the cuboid “100 W” SKlep? Hooked to a 30 W DC power supply (with 1 or two prong cord)… or, since this is his new manufacturing plan, then 10 Tiny SKleps plugged together.
Instead he obfuscates his way through another confusing demo fixing one or two failings from the last and adding at least as many more. Once or twice it might be an accident. After that it’s malice. -
How much power does the power supply consume with, and without, the tiny SKlep attached (operating the unspecified led).
Why does he not do this with a standard rated, name brand, 55W incandescent headlamp and using the cuboid “100 W” SKlep? Hooked to a 30 W DC power supply (with 1 or two prong cord)… or, since this is his new manufacturing plan, then 10 Tiny SKleps plugged together.
Instead he obfuscates his way through another confusing demo fixing one or two failings from the last and adding at least as many more. Once or twice it might be an accident. After that it’s malice.An 55W incandescent headlamps' service life would not allow a 100,000 hour test.
The Demo is done to show the performance of the MiniSKLEP. It is likely that the 100 watt unit is producing transmutation which would limit the lifetime of the catalyst performance over time. The MiniSKLEP most likely operates below the transmutation threshold.
-
Keep in mind that the internal controller is drawing power from the reaction's output power flow. The controller is converting its input electrical usage to waste heat. The reaction is producing more COP that is being reflected on the metering that is being shown by the power supply.
-
An 55W incandescent headlamps' service life would not allow a 100,000 hour test.
The Demo is done to show the performance of the MiniSKLEP. It is likely that the 100 watt unit is producing transmutation which would limit the lifetime of the catalyst performance over time. The MiniSKLEP most likely operates below the transmutation threshold.
Do you seriously think he can stream for over 10 years? This show won’t last nearly that long.
He is transmuting good sense into nonsense and nothing more.
-
I find it hard to accept that fusion is possible when the input power of the mini is in the milliwatt range.
If you remember, from the info we gathered from the QX reactor demo, there was a large periodic spark every 8.3 second cycle followed by a cycle to produce EVOs and a few seconds of RF pumping to feed those EVOs until they exploded.
This cycle could be happening in the mini. The 1 milliamp input power feed every few seconds might be producing a very low powered but high Dv/Dt spark that generates a large number of EVOs and a very low powered pumping level produced by the reaction itself could feed these EVOs until they mostly all mature.
