New Paper By Gullström, Rossi - COP 22,000

Quote from THHuxleynew

Experimental procedure to obtain COP=22000 (Rossi-style)

This thread has made me very depressed, but I'm going to try with a positive reply to the (IMHO) dreadful lack of thought shown by some.

Contention by some: COP=22,000 is too high to be explained away as measurement error. Surely the guy watching this would know if it was 22,000 X off?

I claim: This is absolutely plausible given what we know, and a non-expert (in Rossi experiments) would not question the results.

I will prove my claim by proposing an exact system that Rossi might use that could give the claimed results, as analysed by Rossi and believed by a gullible audience.

I'm not saying this is what he used (There are a whole load of methods, including out and out fabrication, deceit, etc. Only one can be right which means all the others are wrong!). But, Rossi's lies in general are tricky. They more often involve mistaken analysis, misdirection, partial truths misinterpreted by his listeners. So this measurement error solution has more plausibility to me than out and out error.

Background. This looks like a plasma discharge (neon bulb etc). It would likely require a high voltage to initiate. We have a measured implausibly low DC voltage. But a plausible way to generate the high voltages needed to ionise this material is via very low duty cycle spikes from any number of generators that do that. And the average DC voltage (and current) would then be small

Rossi has long past history of using average meters to measure spiky waveforms. It is again plausible that he does that here. What error can we therefore expect on input waveform?

Let us suppose 10V spikes. The duty cycle is then 1% and the error (between power calculated by Rossi from average Dc V and A, and true power) is X100.

Now let us consider the output power. Rossi looks at the radiation spectrum in the range 350-1100nm. He integrates this spectrum to get the spectral peak, which he applies, using Wien's approximation, to determine the super-high temperature of 2700K. He calculates power out as 240W from a 1 sq cm surface area (very high) because of this super-high temperature. Remember this is Rossi doing the calculations, suppose therefore that they are correct, but misleading.

Possible errors:

(1) the actual surface area (of the plasma) is not the area of the container, but smaller than this. Likely magnitude d1/d2. We don't know what this could be, but 10 is plausible?

(2) the plasma radiation is not black body, but has a strong and thin spectral line. The difference here is enormous. For example applying the Rossi method to a sodium vapour lamp we get an over-estimate by a factor equal to the area under the Planck curve with peak the line frequency divided by the area under the narrow-band sodium spectral lines. This is a large factor, possibly 50X, because the spectrum is narrow-band.

(3) the claimed spectral peak is near the limits of the spectrum measured (1100nm vs 1150nm). this is suspicious. Suppose we take Rossi at his word. he is integrating the spectrum to find its weighted average wavelength. This will naturally give a number close to the high wavelength end for any wavelength peak that is lonmger than the measurement window. This will lead to an over-estimate of the frequency - even if it is Black body - by some unknown factor. 5X is plausible. that would give a power error of 625X

Now, (2) and (3) are completely opposite, and cannot both apply. But both do happily apply with (1). So we have a choice of a plausible power out overestimate of:

up to 500X (1) and (2)

up to 6250X (1) and (3)

we have an input error or 100X so we get a Rossi super-COP of 50,000 or 625,000 respectively. Comfortably in excess of Rossi's claims.

Obviously, these calculations are wrong. But they show how easily, using known Rossi tricks and the type of power estimation hinted at from this vague report, input and output, large errors can be obtained.

Regards, THH

Display More

Wow. You really should use your vivid imagination and creativity for something else than coming up with n+1 conspiracy scenarios. Theater maybe. But I get it - almost anything is possible - not very probable though.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Alan, that is interesting, and bears out the "Rossi-style measurement error" reading here. Bright mathematicians and theoretical physicists can be a bit unwordly...

Or not. You really do take every possible moment to add a little FUD, don't you?

Quote from Eric Walker

But at any rate as a rule there's no reason to take seriously

Exactly and that poses the question :

"Why does Rossi always do this?" Why does he not do the testing right?

If he really had something, it would not take a year, would not take a lot of money and could be rather easily done. (Talking about the QuarkX)

Yet he spends time with a student and publishes a useless paper? Some people do not want to recognize this, but it speaks volumes. It follows a pattern of deception and misdirection.

IF ROSSI REALLY HAS WORKING TECHNOLOGY, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE DECEPTIVE ABOUT ANYTHING!

I am still under the strong suspicion that Gullstrom was not present at these tests. So Alan's comments about him be bright may not be applicable at all. If one simply takes data given them, are they going to go into deep questions about where that data came from? We know what Rossi would answer then.... "dummy tests are for dummies"! That person would then be removed from the picture! Only those that follow Rossi's implicit leading are allowed!

Another VERY telling repetitive pattern.

A few thoughts about the new Quark X.

Although there may be secondary LENR reactions taking place in the plasma, the primary reaction happens just beneath the nickel surface of the cathode. The protons bombard the electrode, penetrate the surface, and push their way inward into defects, dislocations, cavities, or other nano-scale features. For one reason or another -- either the creation and fusion of exotic ultra dense forms of hydrogen or exposure to exotic quadrapolar magnetic fields -- nuclear reactions take place.

The first consequence is pretty obvious -- heat. If the nickel cathode reaches a high enough temperature, it will undergo thermionic emission just like a hydrogen thyratron. I've read the argument that the reaction can't happen in the cathode because then all thyratrons would have shown excess heat. This is NOT the case because the cathodes of thyratrons were NOT pre-treated to accept or absorb hydrogen. Instead, they were often doped in the form of nickel oxide or other elements to try and prevent hydrogen absorption. There are obviously important cathode preparation steps that need to take place to produce these nuclear effects.

The second consequence is one that I think is highly likely -- high energy electrons. Ed Storms has performed glow discharge experiments in which a cathode would be impacted by protons/deuterons. The report is on LENR CANR. He detected very large numbers of high energy (.8 MeV) electrons being emitted. I expect that a similar process takes place in the Quark. These electrons may have far more energy and provide more power than the electrons from pure thermionic emission.

And of course since a tiny amount of LiAlH4 was used to provide hydrogen (in a sense making this device be covered under the patent FLUID HEATER) the vaporized lithium may also work its way through the surface of the cathode. However, I expect that very little LiAlH4 was used and that the reactor is probably operating at a pretty low pressure. The idea that the tube was filled with LiAlH4 is likely wrong. But the fact there is lithium present could allow for secondary reactions.

What's so interesting to me is that this version of the technology is a logical extension of his technology. Over and over again, he has incorporated different methods of ionizing or dissociating hydrogen into component atoms and ions. Originally, he likely used reverse spillover catalysts mixed in with the nickel. Then with the one megawatt plant he used radio frequency generators that activated after the reactor cells reached a temperature of several hundred degrees, In various hot cats (although he was able to make them work with just heat) he fed the resistors with "signals" or frequencies. My guess is that at the very high temperatures they operated in even less than optimally applied signals could produce some degree of ionization in the reactor. Then with the one megawatt plant it has been talked about how he applied square wave AC at a frequency that was at resonance with the self capacitance and self inductance of his resistors. This created powerful current spikes. And as we know, since a changing magnetic field produces an electric field, this could have ionized the gas inside the reactor. In the most recent court documents someone (maybe it was Fulvio or Penon) talks about having to install a second network analyzer because of the high currents that the first one couldn't measure.

So it seems to me that the Quark likely works by a combination of cathode pre-treatment and proton bombardment.

A nagging question in my mind is if the cathode could be an alloy with a small percentage of Manganese (Mn) since it is mentioned in the paper that Mn could have been a source of nucleons. Mn is a deoxidizer has been used in other LENR experiments. The Mn may help to push out oxygen from the cathode at high temperature.

These are just my thoughts. I do not claim they are all correct.