A comma is sometimes used as a decimal point (e.g., in Italian): 1,777.7. But to calculate from his inputs: 25.6 / 0.0144 = 1,777.7. (I've persuaded myself that he was using English punctuation.)
How about most of the time https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19…169/overview-9/index.html
If Jesus spoke English why can't everybody else learn it?
Historical detour https://www.forbes.com/sites/m…-no-he-isnt/#58690af8593e
Gibbs and Ethan no longer interested but Jed is on it.
The (other) inference being, that you are only feigning madness?
For Hamlet, there are differing notions of madness, but for maryyugo and her like there is no pretense.
Red handle things:
1777.7 is consistent with Gullstrom's paper which had EO = 20, EI = 0.01, therefore COP = 2000
Interesting that the calculated power out when divided by the input current equals aprox the US 2-phase mains supply voltage.
25.6W / 0.12A = 213.33V
I am doubting now that the plasma gap is adjusted by the red clamps.
Seems more likely to just be a combination of Quark support and electrical connection method.
am doubting now that the plasma gap is adjusted by the red clamps.
Seems more likely to just be a combination of Quark support and electrical connection method.
Absolutely right. I think they are something to do with keeping the oil in the calorimeter. The quark can support itself, the eye-witness about that I heard about suggests it was unsupported (just like a wire) and transparent with silver electrodes. how the tube was sealed is unknown.
Absolutely right. I think they are something to do with keeping the oil in the calorimeter. The quark can support itself, the eye-witness about that I heard about suggests it was unsupported (just like a wire) and transparent with silver electrodes. how the tube was sealed is unknown.
The clamps are also used for the no oil version.
If the resistance of the QuarkX cell itself is negligible during operation (as Rossi had claimed), then there is no inconsistency, as I have pointed out to you before.
IHFB, you did, and were wrong then as well.
Both the Blackboard and the paper calculate a specific input power from a single voltage, measured across the resistor as stated in the paper and clearly shown on the whiteboard circuit diagram. That is incorrect, and says nothing as to what is the real power. A single measured voltage cannot deliver both input voltage and current. In fact, from the whiteboard, it is clear that the voltage measured is across the resistor and delivers current, but not quark-x voltage.
You can hypothesise that the quark-x power is nevertheless very low, even though not measured or calculated. Rossi can say this afterwards, the way he says many things, with no evidence from the contemporaneous account.
In that case why was he calculating V^2/R and saying in the paper that that was the input power (and also on the whiteboard)?
THH,
P = I 2 ⋅ R
We know the current from the V drop across the 1 ohm R so if R is known so is the power. Rossi states R = 1 or less. I would still like to see the V across the reactor.
It is not known how much R varies, or the % self sustain, or what's added to start th reaction.
It seems pointless to speculate now, just wait for the demo.
None of the red clamps at my local Home Depot...
They seem a bit powerful for clamping such a small device. A gentle hand would be required.
In that case why was he calculating V^2/R and saying in the paper that that was the input power (and also on the whiteboard)?
Because he considers the internal resistance of the cell itself when in operation to be a trade secret, although he did state that it is essentially zero. And if that is true, then you can use the resistor in the circuit and V^2/R to determine a very close approximation of the input power.
THH,
P = I 2 ⋅ R
We know the current from the V drop across the 1 ohm R so if R is known so is the power. Rossi states R = 1 or less. I would still like to see the V across the reactor.
It is not known how much R varies, or the % self sustain, or what's added to start th reaction.
It seems pointless to speculate now, just wait for the demo.
It is pointless, and possibly counterproductive, to include such an incomplete and potentially misleading experiment description in the report. I suggested the first time the report came out that Gullstrom should leave those experiment sections out of his report if he expects to get it published. Whether or not he was inspired by the Rossi experiments, the reported Rossi experiments as they are now presented add nothing but confusion to the already speculative work of Gullstrom.
QuoteBecause he considers the internal resistance of the cell itself when in operation to be a trade secret
Rossi has been terrified of competition and has used this fear as an excuse for avoiding proper testing for the last six years. But there is no competition for Rossi, none at all. For the last six years. A Rossidefinition: Trade Secret: Anything that might give the scam away.
It is pointless, and possibly counterproductive, to include such an incomplete and potentially misleading experiment description in the report. I suggested the first time the report came out that Gullstrom should leave those experiment sections out of his report if he expects to get it published. Whether or not he was inspired by the Rossi experiments, the reported Rossi experiments as they are now presented add nothing but confusion to the already speculative work of Gullstrom.
That's really too bad you're not in their labs offering advice! Think of all the science you could offer the world
Because he considers the internal resistance of the cell itself when in operation to be a trade secret, although he did state that it is essentially zero. And if that is true, then you can use the resistor in the circuit and V^2/R to determine a very close approximation of the input power.
No, you cannot. V^2/R has in that case no relation to E2 = Pin (as on the whiteboard). V^2/R bears no relation to the quark-x input power, and therefore to the COP (which Rossi seems to think worth calculating, and calculates with this incorrect method).
V^2/R in that case would approximate the PSU power, but not the quark-X input power.
But it is also highly unlikely a bench PSU would be operated at 0.1V in that way. They don't like such conditions and there is no reason at all not to have a larger series resistor. The reason for a small resistor is as a current measuring device, not a current determining device.
It is pointless, and possibly counterproductive, to include such an incomplete and potentially misleading experiment description in the report. I suggested the first time the report came out that Gullstrom should leave those experiment sections out of his report if he expects to get it published. Whether or not he was inspired by the Rossi experiments, the reported Rossi experiments as they are now presented add nothing but confusion to the already speculative work of Gullstrom.
The report was submitted to arXiv. The intent for that submission was to subject the paper to peer review comments. In fact. a revised paper was subsequently published to address some questions that were submitted in the initial gogo around. I wonder if these new questions about the paper regarding the COP calculations would generate changes to explicate the thinking behind the calculations. Is it too late to submit questions?
No, you cannot. V^2/R has in that case no relation to E2 = Pin (as on the whiteboard). V^2/R bears no relation to the quark-x input power, and therefore to the COP (which Rossi seems to think worth calculating, and calculates with this incorrect method).
V^2/R in that case would approximate the PSU power, but not the quark-X input power.
But it is also highly unlikely a bench PSU would be operated at 0.1V in that way. They don't like such conditions and there is no reason at all not to have a larger series resistor. The reason for a small resistor is as a current measuring device, not a current determining device.
Yes you can. It is in fact a conservative approximation of the input power (assuming Rossi's assertion about the cell itself having effectively a zero resistance is true). Think of it this way: if the cell has effectively zero resistance when in operation, then you can consider it as a good conductor (such as a wire) as an approximation. How would you measure the power in that case? By doing as Rossi has done. So why didn't Rossi just take the voltage reading across both the resistor and the cell and use both resistances in the calculation? Because he wanted to keep the specific values related to the cell a trade secret. Is this ideal for the peanut gallery? No. Is it what happened and does it make sense in that context? Yes.
