New Paper By Gullström, Rossi - COP 22,000

    Quote from axil

    The implication the Bob is drawing is that the structural material that the reactor is made from is transparent. This conjecture is not supported by the possible detection method of plasma related to a current flow between the electrodes as seen in the appropriate current measurement instruments.

    But, in the report of the experiment, they say that the resistance was 1 ohm and the measured voltage was 0.105V. Those don't sound like a description of a plasma measurement. It could be the ionized operating discharge voltage and dynamic resistance at high temperature, but you would think they would say this if that is how they determined that a plasma was present.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Well no, that is not possible, because the report contains a logical error that dramatically invalidates its results. It remains possible that the device produced excess heat, or indeed had some unexpected endothermic nuclear reaction and produced beyond chemically possible heat absorption. Those possibilities would be there with no experiment, and these results don't narrow things down except to rule out a large heat excess of the sort claimed in the report.


    bla bla bla. That is your opinion. We all know that. You have tons of hours invested in it so I don't expect you to change.


    But. The fact remains. And as you say, regardless of the exact amount of excess heat there were ash analysis showing reactions, which is what Gullström was using.

    • Official Post

    THHuxley


    Let us assume there was an ENORMOUS error in measuring the heat output. Since the wrongly measured COP was 22,000, even if we assume a measurement error of three orders of magnitude (103), we are still looking at a COP of 22. And at that level the output would only be a couple of watts, and Gullstrom would have been saying 'is it getting warm yet?'

    Quote from Alan Smith

    THHuxley


    Let us assume there was an ENORMOUS error in measuring the heat output. Since the wrongly measured COP was 22,000, even if we assume a measurement error of three orders of magnitude (103), we are still looking at a COP of 22. And at that level the output would only be a couple of watts, and Gullstrom would have been saying 'is it getting warm yet?'

    This makes common sense. Gullstrom could tell the difference between the heat produced by a large incandescent light bulb equivalent or a LED. The vigor of heat output was so apparent, Gullstrom would not need to use any fancy heat measuring equipment to tell that the reactor was gainful.

    Alan, your point might be true on some level, but without a detailed description of the experiment, you would have to take the 22,000 COP result on faith in the measurements, as Gullstrom appears to do. Here is the description of the experiment that we have:




    Consider the description one would want, in sharp contrast to this one, in order to have any confidence in a COP of 22,000, or even a description sufficient to make one wonder about such a COP. What we have here inspires neither confidence that the conclusion of the authors is correct, nor even more than the vaguest question about it. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but we have set our sights very low indeed.

    Yeah, yeah. Some details are unknown but Alan is on the right track. Anyone that apply 0.011W to a needle and get this kind of light/heat doesn't really doubt anymore if COP>1 or not. It is freaking obvious that it is by orders of magnitude. What interests Gullström is the theory behind it. Maybe he is on the right track or not. I have no idea. But the QuarkX is a fact.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    Something is not a fact simply because an anonymous poster on the Internet asserts with confidence that it is.


    Are you saying Gullström is an anonymous poster on the Internet?


    (as far as I interpret it the QuarkX is a fact in his mind)

    The description of the input measurement, "0.105 V of direct current over a 1 Ohm resistance." is an absurd characterization of the input power. How is it that the resistance of the device was exactly 1.0 ohms? Any plasma device is going to have a highly variable current through it and voltage across it and it can even have a negative dynamic resistance. You could only ascribe a dynamic resistance at a given operating point to such a device. Even a tiny old neon bulb is going to use more power than 11mW as input. What he is describing as having a gap of 1.5cm is likely to need several thousand volts to start the plasma. How is he measuring that the plasma gap voltage is only 0.105V and determining that the dynamic resistance is 1.0 ohms?


    The trivial description of input to the tube, makes the whole measurement seem absurd. How could someone obviously so mathematically astute as Gullstrom have an experiment description that would get an 8th grade science student a grade of "D"?

    Quote from anotherTroll

    Are you saying Gullström is an anonymous poster on the Internet?


    (as far as I interpret it the QuarkX is a fact in his mind)


    I was referring to you of course. :) You are anonymous and you are a poster, and you have asserted with confidence that "the QuarkX is a fact." Gullstrom is not anonymous, and he is not a poster, here at any rate (an assumption on my part), although perhaps in his mind he supposes the QuarkX to be a fact. But I imagine you knew all of that and were just replying with a retort.


    Even prior to this paper, I found Gullstrom's credibility from the self-published paper he made available following upon the Lugano report to be pretty low already. The present paper attempts to connect mesons with high-level observations of something that sounds like glow discharge. We LENR watchers have grown accustomed to papers whose conclusions are a stretch and don't think much of it anymore.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    result on faith in the measurements, as Gullstrom appears to do

    We all have to remember.... we cannot implicity trust the wording that Rossi uses. It has become proven fact, such as "customer making real production" etc. etc.


    In the report, it states participants to the experiment - Gullstrom and Rossi.


    Gullstrom is a student at Upsalla, located in Sweden. Do you think he really was in physical attendance, in Doral Florida, for this experiment? Or is his "participation" relegated to performing analysis on the data? I believe he only took the usual "Rossi says" and was doing analysis.


    We have no proof that the data is valid at all. As with Rossi's lawsuit expert, Dr. Wong, he never saw anything. He simply reported from what Rossi had told him.


    If one puts into context, that Mr. Gullstrom was not there, but only used data supplied by Rossi, we have the same situation as we always do. The 1 year sale of heat data becomes a GPT and the actual data is worthless. 0 bar, same flow, taken manually one time per day from a meter not suited for the purpose. etc. etc.


    I would imagine that Mr. Gullstrom is honest and sincere, but simply beguiled by Rossi, as so many have fallen to in the past. Some still do based upon the posts here. Quite amazing.


    In my opinion, I would not put any credence to any test that comes from Rossi. Only if it was done truly independently, with him physically located in another hemisphere!:) Many make "scientific assumptions" about Rossi tests only to find out that Rossi does NOT conduct things scientifically! As he stated, calibration tests are stupid.


    Why does anyone believe anything in this report? :/


    Ok, but if he was there, it would make a huge difference, right?

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I was referring to you of course. :) You are anonymous and you are a poster, and you have asserted with confidence that "the QuarkX is a fact." Gullstrom is not anonymous, and he is not a poster, here at any rate (an assumption on my part), although perhaps in his mind he supposes the QuarkX to be a fact. But I imagine you knew all of that and were just replying with a retort.


    Even prior to this paper, I found Gullstrom's credibility from the self-published paper he made available following upon the Lugano report to be pretty low already. The present paper attempts to connect mesons with high-level observations of something that sounds like glow discharge. We LENR watchers have grown accustomed to papers whose conclusions are a stretch and don't think much of it anymore.


    Well, what can I say... I'm just an anotherTroll (anonymous) which is a fact that does not really need to be elaborated on :) And the rest is your opinion about his theory, which is fine. I dont expect it to be a done deal, but these are new territories to be covered. So that is fine as well. My only comment was about what Alan mentioned; the input of 0.011W and 22k COP. And I'm saying that both you and me would notice it if it happened on the table in front of us, right?

    Quote from anotherTroll

    And I'm saying that both you and me would notice it if it happened on the table in front of us, right?


    I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to electronics, which is central to the reported experiment, so you wouldn't want me there in the room weighing in on it. But I note Bob Higgins's strong doubts and consider his opinion to be expert opinion in the present context.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to electronics, which is central to the reported experiment, so you wouldn't want me there in the room weighing in on it. But I note Bob Higgins's strong doubts and consider his opinion to be expert opinion in the present context.


    Nah, nice dodge though. As I see it Bob argue that Gullström wasn't there at all, which is not the same thing. I'm simply stating that you (regardless of scientific background) would notice the light/heat described by Gullström from the 0.011W. Am I right?

    It's not a dodge to provide information that is correct and relevant that addresses an unspoken assumption of your question. But to the question, I would definitely notice heat and light, in the similar manner to the heat and light that I observe in a lightbulb. Now is the lightbulb giving off 10 W? Is the power going into it 0.011 W or 10 W? These are the kinds of questions that are necessary to answer in order to draw any further conclusions and for which I would not be of much help.


    And Gullstrom will have needed to answer questions such as these as well, or alternatively to have taken Rossi on his word instead, as he appears to have done.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    It's not a dodge to provide information that is correct and relevant that addresses an unspoken assumption of your question. But to the question, I would definitely notice heat and light, in the similar manner to the heat and light that I observe in a lightbulb. Now is the lightbulb giving off 10 W? Is the power going into it 0.011 W or 10 W? These are the kinds of questions that are necessary to answer in order to draw any further conclusions and for which I would not be of much help.


    And Gullstrom will have needed to answer questions such as these as well, or alternatively to have taken Rossi on his word instead, as he appears to have done.


    Yeah, but if you put a finger on it and you would (roughly) know the difference between 0.01W, 10W and 260W, right?

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.