Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

  • 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.

  • @THHuxleynew


    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 2R

    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.

  • 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 2R

    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.

  • Quote

    Because 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.

  • JulianBianchi,

    I had to constrain my estimate somehow. The plasma has to be able to fit in a thin tube, probably built by hand. The electrode gap is adjustable by means of a large lever, which should imply a limit to the internal pressures/vacuums feasible.


    Z-pinch tubes are cylindrical tubes made of quartz (or similar) that contain a plasma in which a high current is passed through to compress it. In other words, the Quark X is a z-pinch tube almost by definition. In the 1950s most tubes had a diameter of a few cms but then it was shown that a smaller diameter was beneficial to reach higher plasma densities when compressed. Interestingly enough, the Quark X has some dimensions that are compatible with the criteria known to lead to enhanced plasma stability.


    No neutrons, etc. seem to be coming out of the tube.


    Do we know if Rossi has ever worked with deuterium?


    My general impression was that simply using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for a plasma, which is considered to be a blackbody in this case, within a thin transparent tube, is quite easily subject to errors that can easily span orders of magnitude compared to a solid that is a blackbody of the same dimensions.


    If anyone wants to work out the plasma density/pressure/temperature/frequency required to make a blackbody in the space allotted by the Quark design, please have a go at it.


    As soon as a current passes through the plasma, magnetic Lorentz forces contract the plasma which forms a filament in the center of the tube with minimum pinch diameter. From what you wrote I get the impression that you would like to assume that the pressure, temperature and density of the plasma remain isotropic within the tube. This cannot be the case precisely because of the pinch. In other words I don't think that a good set of conditions exist "to make a blackbody" and indeed the Stefan-Boltzmann equation not fit for purpose.

  • V^2/R ?

    Wat are you talking about?

    I^2 = 0.109 so power = 1 x 0,190

    Assume the reactor is 1 ohm.

    It the output is 20 W COP = 183.

    If the resistance of the reactor is less, the COP goes up

    This then has to divided by the fraction of the time not in self sustain.


    I would be happy with a COP = 200 Obviously Rossi thinks the resistance of the reactor would give clues to others. I think it likely that with an audience of 70 he will show the COP in a believable manner. You seem just bent on finding anything wrong with what Rossi has said and miss the big picture. If the E-Cat QX works half as well as he claims it will be a sensation. If it doesn't work all your dirt digging won't matter anyway.

  • 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.


    If Rossi had measured the voltage across both the resistance and Quarkx, then it would be an upper bound on input power to the Quarkx (i.e. conservative):

    (V(R)+V(Q))^2/R > (V(R)+V(Q))^2/(R+R(quarkx))


    However, Rossi only measured voltage across the resistance, and:

    V(R)^2/R<(V(R)+V(Q))^2/R


    We can't conclude that what he measured is greater or smaller than actual input power. He's just measuring the wrong stuff.


    Or show me your math that proves your assertion.

  • 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?


    Why it should be too late? It's quite obvious to me that at the current state they are not aiming for publishing in any journal. arXiv is just a public directory that is used for early release of articles, and moderators of the site are not required to do peer review before accepting a paper: the only requirements seem to be proper classification and not being manifestly anti-scientific. It's quite sad the site doesn't provide any tool for commenting the article and leaving public feedback. Apparently the only way to ask for new revisions of the paper is by contacting the authors directly through their emails.

  • Do not ask for actual math or actual proof.


    1: "Rossi says" trumps any math. Do not question what he states. "Rossi says" is equal to truth. Math is an inconvenient truth. There was a heat exchanger regardless of the math.


    2: Keeping IP or Trade secrets from the competition is ALWAYS the reason why real math or real facts cannot be given. You cannot know the customer, the voltage, the resistance or anything that might actually be "proved", because the competition will immediately grab it and make an air tight patent from it! Just like they have done with the eCat, the Hot Cat, the Gas Cat, the 1MW plant etc.


    3. Measuring the voltage would have "given the baby" away! Yet if "seems to me" backing into the formula finds the voltage, this does no harm to IP! You see, only if "Rossi says" the voltage, does it actually give IP away! To the believers, eCat facts are like the split slot experiment.... the facts only condense into a measurable particle when "Rossi says", otherwise they are indeterminate! :/


    No use arguing. It is a religion.

  • I would like to invite you to a more reasonable company rather than this cult of Rossi says. Care to try and organize a replication attempt of Unified Gravity device with MFMP? They have a COP of 3710, which is astounding for a direct DC electric production of around 16kW, more than enough to power a house or run a car.




  • Phase 1 Summary

    The Safire project experimentally simulate the power generating reactions that occur in the Sun. The electoral reaction principle to be tested is the processes and methods that generate solar energy that are not based on gravity. Using protium, the anomalous experimental findings so far show a high coronal temperature of 3000C as compared to a core temperature of 500C. There also the production of reaction transmutation products with atomic weight of 3. There are alco 10,000,000 watt cornal like explosive discharges produced from a 1800 watt input current.


    Phase 2 video



  • Quote

    They have a COP of 3710, which is astounding for a direct DC electric production of around 16kW, more than enough to power a house or run a car.


    You mean they CLAIM a COP of whatever... which is not the same as having it. Not only would 16kW be enough to power thinggies like you say, but, way more important, it would do away with any need for input power of ANY SORT to the device. So, for example, it should be able to run on a glass table in the middle of a parking lot, under continuous observation for weeks or months without any input power, right? That would be very easy to test. Want to bet that test will NEVER be done?