[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/31/the-e-cat-as-a-cavity-resonator-producing-50-120kev-radiation-with-side-effects-paul-dodgshun/']The following post has been submitted by Paul Dodgshun The E-cat as a cavity resonator producing 50-120keV radiation with side effects. Define machine : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ‘A machine is a tool containing one or more parts that uses energy to perform an intended action.’ [following the definition, a helpful sentence] ‘Machines are usually powered by mechanical, […][/feedquote]
I always thought that Rossi had taken us as clowns because he hid magnetrons at each end of its famous Lugano reactor !!
I have read this elsewhere. Have you heard or read this from somewhere else or simply it is your speculation?
My impression is that Rossi exploit all our speculation to give to us, the peanut gallery, what we want to hear.
there is a disease (it was well described in one episode of Dr House) where the patient have no opinion or memory, but exploit all he hear from people around and answer what people want to hear.
Forme it happened with the theory, with many things on quark...
maybe I'm wrong, but I have the constitutional right to consider I'm right.
@AlainCo: Your are right. Most information was never revealed by Rossi himself.
It was often just a Q&A where Rossi answered with "yes" or "no".
Then the community starts speculation and interpretation...
Gameover, trust me, no speculation !
If Rossi used a special design for his devices it was not for the fun..
It exists small sized magnetron, MFMP could wait still a long time with their Dogbone.
Maybe you could fit custom magnetrons on both the ends of the tube.
The only problem would be temperatures.
So this would also make the E-Cat a resonant cavity thruster EM-Drive analogue?
Has Rossi detected a thrust?
I think this speculation was done and he answered something on it...
If he answered yes, I consider it validates my theory.
You can consider something else.
But keep in mind that there are valid reasons for using magnetrons for the LENR reaction regardless of any possible link with the EM-Drive. Piantelli also suggests them in his patent(s), where they serve mainly for dissociating, exciting and ionizing hydrogen.
Rossi has stated that he detected a thrust some months ago but the details of its nature were not disclosed.
No need to thank, it was a 2 minutes job and I have always wondered too if the fat ends of the bone concealed something.
Simply heating ordinary micropowder under static conditions and praying that LENR works: I agree that it is probably not a profitable way to conduct experiments except maybe in fortunate cases.
After reviewing old documents, putting two magnetrons on the ends of the tube would not even be a completely new idea. This would probably work in a similar manner:
In case it is not clear, that is not my reactor! That is a schematic from the ICCF18 paper by prof. Yeong E. Kim who has worked as a consultant for DGT for some time. I think (personal opinion) that DGT illegaly disclosed to the public some of the ideas of Rossi, who obviously got furious at the time and denied that anything from the Greeks worked.
For what concerns me, this double spark plug system could have even been an early idea of Rossi who took inspiration from his Alfa Romeo (haha!). But, as you say, even according to DGT it was not reliable.
In the context of LENR reactors, magnetrons could avoid hot spots and allow more flexibility in the sense that you can potentially place them at some distance from the reactor using a waveguide. But I am not an expert in that area, so this may only be my impression.
According to DGT the sparks served to aid the dissociation of hydrogen molecules and to excite hydrogen atoms to their Rydberg state. The rest of their theory is not very clear to me (I never bothered too much), but in a "leaked" presentation they claimed that a catalyst for the reaction is potassium carbonate (K2CO3). They did not mention his works anywhere, but with these two hints one can nowadays easily think of Holmlid, who (incidentally) uses industrial potassium-iron oxide catalysts to produce Rydberg matter (which may or may not exist). Was DGT actually pointing at that without making it too clear? Difficult to tell.
Depending on their strength the sparks may have also helped to produce pressure waves that could have been beneficial for the reaction (for example the loading-unloading that you often mention). But if you think at this spark plug system as simply a tool serving mainly for exciting hydrogen atoms, then you can potentially replace it with something else as Piantelli also states in his patents.
What I think of the reaction in practice is that essentially you mainly need to have a high surface area nanostructured catalyst and then cause as much hydrogen as possible to flow through it and dissociate at its surface (including the surface of the pores in the bulk inside the catalyst). More surface, together with more hydrogen flux, obviously means more dissociation events. I do not think that "loading" is really the key (and Edmund Storms does not think that either), but that H2 flux and surface area are.
The application of alternative or additional hydrogen dissociation and ionization means must increase the the probability of something that only happens rarely with just the continuous dissociation and recombination of H2 on and inside the catalyst (and almost never in static conditions and/or with a sintered nickel metal blob).
The FT potassium-iron oxide catalysts used by Holmlid, under heating and low pressure, emit excited potassium atoms from their surface which in turn ionize and excite hydrogen atoms adsorbed and in close proximity, so that may be an additional reason of why at least in his case they seem to work well.
As for pure plasma systems one should also consider that the erosive effect of high voltage discharges on surfaces may inadvertently (or not) be creating metal nanoparticles of small size, which have intense catalytic effects.
Am I getting from this exchange that Rossi is believed to have a super fancy controller box?
I have examined the several photos of the grey box available, and it is both a three-thermocouple temperature monitor, and a phase controller. It has two rheostats, one which I believe to be the peak volt setting, and the other a sort of duty cycle dial. The output goes to the Compact Fusion micro controller, and so the final output is not especially complicated. But the combination of peak voltage and duty cycle control can give "unique" effects to measurement devices.
The grey box can be seen with three thermocouples going into it in the Vessela photo, and one at Lugano. It has an indicator for each thermocouple, with a sticky note next to each one.
(There is also an emergency shut off switch for power, the Big Red Button).
No idea, to be honest.
But looking back at the pre-2011 Rossi prototypes (discussed recently in a different thread) I do not think that a complex control is necessary to make the reaction start.
Arriving to see something reproducibly would be the first big step.
Hi Gameover, after sent "your reactor", you have to explain it.
We know now that the DGT spark had both a good effect and a bad effect on the LENR reaction. The good effect was the production of an electrostatic charge inside of the reactor. The bad effect was a distruction of the Bose condinsate that LENR needs to thermalize the Gamma to heat. The DGT produced a goodly amount of high energy EMF that other non spark reactors don't produce.
Rossi's Quark reactor uses only .5 watts to stimulate the LENR reaction. This low power level is consistent with the reaction stimulation method that Rossi has snuck into his patent in a recent update. That new method is electrostatic charge generation.
As was shown in the Lugano demo, waveform stimulation produces a limited power density reaction that does not exceed at most COP=3 and some say far less. The stimulation that might be used to produce the very high COP is the electrostatic stimulation that generates the TAO effect. That is the reference to the two electrodes that can produce an EMF potential of up to 100,000 volts and is defined in an update to the Rossi patent.
See my post: High Temperature Superconductivity and LENR
See the patent update here:
If you read this patent update that references the NEW electrostatic stimulator which operates between 50 and 100 KV, Rossi says that the resistance heater is NO LONGER REQUIRED.
Rossi also says that the reaction temperature is between 400 to 600C. This means that the update is applied to the LOW TEMPERATURE REACTOR.
Rossi uses a hydrogen ionization method that does not produce a high voltage DC spark, but does inject high energy electrons into the hydrogen gas. Rossi might use adjustment of the voltage potential between the electrodes to control the reaction. The minimum size of the Quark Reactor might depend on the distance between the electrodes that can be set to keep a spark discharge from occurring at maximum potential of 100 KV.
So you need to build an electrostatic charge, but not make it to actually discharge?
After seeing the edit: yes.
Unfortunately I do not see new private messages. If you sent an email, please use forum conversations instead (if possible).
I have read your post "High Temperature Superconductivity and LENR", and actually I found it interesting.
High Temperature Superconductivity and LENR