Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • A plasma is not the same as a simple resistor. It seems that the resistance of the reactor is at least "low." Did Rossi say the total voltage was exactly 0.1v? I would still like to see a direct measurement.

    There is a photo of two parallel voltmeters on the reactor in the Gullstrom-Rossi paper (v3).


    https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05249

  • (One could use the zoom function on the PDF. The photo has fairly high resolution.)

    What the wires are connected to is a bit more problematic. There is also the infamous whiteboard photo. It is hard to make out, but does have a wiring diagram for the voltmeter and the calculations.

    1. Oystein Lande July 23, 2017 at 1:18 PM

      Dear mr Rossi,

      Regarding the Rossi-Gullstrom paper:

      The total power supply was not mentioned, but some say you used a 24 V battery?

      If this is correct your total input power to the experiment setup would be 24V * 0,1 A = 2,4 Watts.

      Can you confirm the battery voltage?

      Regards


      Lande

    2. Andrea Rossi July 23, 2017 at 1:57 PM

      Oystein Lande:


      Our power source can be either 120 or 220 V AC, or we can use 24V DC batteries.


      Obviously your calculation is wrong, because one thing is the voltage at the power source, a totally different thing is the voltage that goes to the E-Cat through the circuitry of the control system.


      In the same Gullstroem-Rossi paper you can read the voltage measured by the 2 voltmeters.


      Warm Regards,


      A.R.

    .........................................................................

    1. Silver August 15, 2017 at 6:12 AM

      Dr Andrea Rossi,


      Your measurement system described in the Gullstrom-Rossi paper is perfect. The circuit is very simple, the plasma is a conductor, as everybody knows, therefore placing a resistance with a known ohmage and measuring the voltage across it, the current is obtained by the Ohm equation, as well as the wattage.


      Godspeed


      Silver

    2. Andrea Rossi August 15, 2017 at 7:47 AM

      Silver:


      Correct.


      Warm Regards,


      A.R.

    ...........................

    1. Mario Marini August 4, 2017 at 5:57 AM

      Dr Andrea Rossi:


      Looking at the paper Gullstrom Rossi I understand you measured the wattage across the 1 Ohm resistance to determine the wattage in the circuit, based on the rule of the circuit with two resistances of which one has a known value in Ohm, the other has not. I learned this at the school of electrotecnics: when a circuit is made by a power source and 2 reasistances, to know how much is the energy in the circuit you can measure the voltage across a resistance with well known ohms and get the amps from the ohm’s equation. Multiplying V x A you know the amount of energy in the circuit, less the dissipation caused by the resistance.


      Am I correct?


      Mario

    2. Andrea Rossi August 4, 2017 at 2:20 PM

      Mario Marini:


      Exactly.


      Warm Regards,


      A.R.


    ............................................

  • Thanks for the enlargement but I'm sorry to say I still can't read them without fiddling with them more. I have macular degeneration.

    We should certainly skip the Rossi Quark whiteboard conversion. It is a blurry bunch of scribbles for everyone that looks at it.

    (Clicking on the photo of the meters that I posted above will enlarge it further, and I think it can be expanded from that view even.) It was quite large on my PC.

  • Quote

    The purpose of the demo is to introduce the Quark to the public prior to manufacture.

    axil You mean like the purpose of Lewan's steam ecat demo was to introduce the steam ecat to the public prior to manufacture. And the purpose of the megawatt plant demo was to introduce the megawatt plant to the public before manufacture. And the purpose of the hot cat demo was to introduce the hot cat to the public prior to manufacture?


    Alan Smith

    Quote

    Maybe I should just stay home and watch afternoon TV, likely resulting in my premature death from boredom?

    I for one, am sincerely (no sarcasm here) delighted and somewhat surprised that you are taking the trouble to go. At the very least, your report and photos should be amusing!


    Quote

    At this time Rossi is not trying to get money from the demo. That would not be the place for an investor to do due diligence anyway.

    If LENR investors bothered with due diligence, we would not have had the legal case of Rossi vs IH and the countersuit because IH would have properly tested the ecats and would have not invested in Rossi.


    Quote

    Commercialization of LENR is the only way that the reality of LENR can be communicated to the rank and file of humanity.

    I am always mystified when I read this choice bit of believer nonsense. Commercialization, of course, is ONE way. But a few properly performed tests done by credible and well known testing agencies would do the same thing. So would a convincing demo of a high power LENR machine, running on its own output power alone for prolonged periods. As long as sleight of hand could be ruled out.


    Quote

    I know he has been talking to ABB Robotics and he could possibly make a deal with them to supply the automated factory.

    Of course! Just like the deal Rossi made with University of Bologna and Upsalla to definitively and independently test the ecat, just like the deal he made with NASA to certify the steam ecat, just like the deal he made with National Instruments to partner up on the ecat, similarly with Philips, just like the thermoelectric module that was tested by the University of New Hampshire and the deal he made with whoever it was to sell heat and the deal he made with IH and then, according to Rossi in JONP, they were able to make their own working ecats, prove that they worked, and they even made their own "charge" (fue). Anybody who can read can find all those statements by Rossi. Not to forget Rossi's army of certificators, still working away so by Christmas you can buy a home heater ecat at Home Depot!

  • Quote
    Adrian Ashfield wrote: My impression from the photo was that the light came from a small hole (window) in the sheath. It wasn't clear enough to tell for sure.


    I replied (earlier todat) From a window in the shielding they put in front of it. The light can be any colour required. (Yeah, me too!) The tube is AFAIK sapphire and very small and slender, the electrodes bright silver in colour, the max duty cycle without a heat exchange fluid is 10%. That's all I know.


    ETA - there was an earlier account of seeing a Quark in action that may well have said yellow. Can't remember which thread it might be in though.

  • Now we are getting warmer... or should I say cooler?

    Any fish willing to bite on the surface area of a plasma question yet?

    (I fear it will take a very intelligent and diligent fish to tackle this question).

    If the quark still follows the original Rossi patent, the fuel preparation that is used in the quark contains metallic hydrides or hydrogen. This molecule can stay together in a plasma at very high temperatures even beyond the temperature of the Sun's corona. See post #1620 on this thread.


    "Protons with high enough energy can be ejected from a condensed form of hydrogen called ultradense hydrogen, which is stable even at the temperature of the Sun. Experiments show that such a mechanism exists."


    The cool dusty plasma inside the Quark envelope contains solid nanoparticles which include at a minimum ultra dense hydrogen and nickel nanoparticles. The plasma that you are envisioning is probably not like the cold plasma that exists inside the quark reactor.

  • The answer is a tricky one. I can see, in my mind's eye, the route towards an answer. It will neccesarily be an OOM fraction estimate of the surface area of a solid occupying the same volume due to the number of assumptions required.


    I estimate (guess) that roughly 4 to 5 Orders Of Magnitude less plasma surface area occurs within a surface area equivalent to a solid of the same outer dimensions as the interior of the Quark vessel, at not-too-extreme plasma densities, as applicable to the area factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (if it is appropriate at all).

  • What biggest density of plasma (at too-extreme plasma densities)

    The answer is a tricky one. I can see, in my mind's eye, the route towards an answer. It will neccesarily be an OOM fraction estimate of the surface area of a solid occupying the same volume due to the number of assumptions required.


    I estimate (guess) that roughly 4 to 5 Orders Of Magnitude less plasma surface area occurs within a surface area equivalent to a solid of the same outer dimensions as the interior of the Quark vessel, at not-too-extreme plasma densities, as applicable to the area factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (if it is appropriate at all).

    What biggest density of plasma (at too-extreme plasma densities)

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • Gennadiy Tarassenko ,

    I really couldn't even guess at a real number at the moment.


    I looked at a whole bunch of reports of various plasma densities, (which are generally commensurate with temperature), and then at typical solid material densities.

    Then I looked at a whole bunch of optical thickness estimates for various dispersed particles versus solid materials. I also considered that Bremmstrahlung is responsible for the blackbody spectrum of plasmas, while characteristic spectral lines are present, but not likely to carry away a large amount of energy compared to Bremmstrahlung (unless lasing was intentional).


    My guess is a mental composite of a lot of random data. I mostly compared the ranges of the order of magnitude differences between solids and plasmas in regards to various characteristics, as best as I could manage, without getting caught up in the precise values.


    If someone wants to try and do a more specific estimate, they are welcome to it. It looks really difficult.


    I think lightning was one of the highest plasma densities I looked at.

    (High density plasmas seemed to tend to push themselves apart by electric charge repulsion, towards a lower density, pretty quick unless they are held under pressure somehow).


  • I say that the planet kernel Earth consists of plasma of cold nuclear synthesis, plasma can have density as iron from 10 g/cm3 and more. Who can confirm or reject such statement!

    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:


  • Not sure if this is what you are looking for but in the 1990s I had the chance to do a (small) research project in a Tokamak and from that work I know the basics of plasma densities. In Tokamak designs, plasma densities are typically in the 1019/m3 range with confinement times in the order of 1 sec to fulfil the Lawson criterion. ITER will not be different in that regard. On the other hand, capillary fusion Z-pinch designs with filaments of <1 mm diameter can have plasma densities up to 1027/m3. Search for "high density Z-pinch". HDZP prototypes were developed in the 1970s in Los Alamos. In a table top capillary fusion experiment, plasma densities in the range of at least 1023/m3 are easily manageable. You can look at the references I gave in my previous post.

  • Это же сколько будет плотность г/см3??

    Not sure if this is what you are looking for but in the 1990s I had the chance to do a (small) research project in a Tokamak and from that work I know the basics of plasma densities. In Tokamak designs, plasma densities are typically in the 1019/m3 range with confinement times in the order of 1 sec to fulfil the Lawson criterion. ITER will not be different in that regard. On the other hand, capillary fusion Z-pinch designs with filaments of <1 mm diameter can have plasma densities up to 1027/m3. Search for "high density Z-pinch". HDZP prototypes were developed in the 1970s in Los Alamos. In a table top capillary fusion experiment, plasma densities in the range of at least 1023/m3 are easily manageable. You can look at the references I gave in my previous post.

    Не вижу предыдущую ссылку


    And where the link, give the reference please still here, I don't see your link. Это how many there will be g/cm3 density??



    Нефть - это кровь планеты, надо сделать модель планеты и мы получим генератор Тарасенко, эта энергия покорит вселенную! :lenr:

  • We should certainly skip the Rossi Quark whiteboard conversion. It is a blurry bunch of scribbles for everyone that looks at it.

    (Clicking on the photo of the meters that I posted above will enlarge it further, and I think it can be expanded from that view even.) It was quite large on my PC.


    Para it is more than that much more. I do not want to get personal with Rossi but you need to look at the body language in the photo. I have found being honest with people means they become quite honest with you in return regardless of warts.


    We are so off the rails at this point. We could and should be coming up with ideas to make the "world a better place." Maybe our time would be better spent there? (that is a question to you para?) not waxing....

  • I for one would like Paradigmnoia to piece together a model of the QuarkX on the basis of statements that Rossi has made and photos that have been released.


    Does anyone have a description of the specific experiment that has putatively reached 5 sigma, or a p-value of 3e-7? Going along with Rossi for the sake of argument, what would the sample size need to be?

  • I for one would like Paradigmnoia to piece together a model of the QuarkX on the basis of statements that Rossi has made and photos that have been released.


    Does anyone have a description of the specific experiment that has putatively reached 5 sigma, or a p-value of 3e-7? Going along with Rossi for the sake of argument, what would the sample size need to be?

    Pointless query, if I may say so. Signor Rossi does not use the term 5 sigma (or sigma 5) in its common sense of being a measure of unlikelihood of a given event being sheerly random. He has not and cannot have done the number of tests needed to justify using such a measure.

    Mind you, we have yet to be informed exactly what he means in his personal and idiosyncratic use of the term