Quotewe know where the 20watts of power come from
His method of estimating the output power vastly overestimates it. So it was not 20W. Could have been as small as 100mW.
New Paper By Gullström, Rossi - COP 22,000
-
-
His method of estimating the output power vastly overestimates it. So it was not 20W. Could have been as small as 100mW.
I thought his estimate gave 'W = 5, 67 × 1012 × 0.9 × 4.8 × 1013 = 244.9'? Where did your 20W come from?
-
@Bob
Of course he never found a 5MV power source. But the rest of your post is pure guesswork, which is your right, but by definition based on evidence even flimsier than Rossi's paper.
Guess work true...
Flimsy yes, flimsier than Rossi's paper... I doubt it.
My reasoning was based upon the numbers for the transformer requested by Rossi to Bass. 5MV, 20 watts, etc.
The 1.5cm gap between electrodes would take significant voltage to arc. So my thoughts are not completely without logic there.
Rossi has shown to falsify many things, so my speculation on the Gullstrom numbers is not without precedence.
The email content and the QuarkX are too close to be coincidence.
I would be interested in what your explanation might be for Rossi's QuarkX claim and the Gullstrom paper. As we do have some (but very little) evidence to theorize such as Rossi's emails and the Gullstrom paper now. My "flimsy thoughts" certainly are not without some basis for discussion, after all, that is what were here for. Rossi posted the paper to Arvix, which means it is public for people to analyze, not like it was a "leaked" internal document. Are we to accept it and ignore the obvious issues?
If there was any evidence that the QuarkX was real or the Gullstrom paper fact based, I would certainly be discussing those as well. Is there? Are we to believe there was a plasma created from a 1.5cm arc with .1 volt input? Of course not. Now we have emails from Rossi looking for a high voltage transformer, which just happens to produce 20 watts, needs to be very small and of enough voltage to make the 1.5cm arc! Amazing coincidence!
I am assuming based upon your response to my thoughts that you either believe the Quarkx works and thus have thoughts on how it works or are possibly of the mind set of "if you cannot say anything positive, do not say anything at all". I say this as I have never seen you call out IHFB or TDIU for "stretching credibility" with their "positive eCat" remarks!
Oh well, we all have our points of view.
-
I would say a few things about this exchange:
1. It's a strange thing to ask for urgently if he didn't need it.
2. It's clearly stated it's for the JMP plant.
3. The JMP plant device is clearly separate from IH licensed IP and he wants to keep it that way.
4. It's in November 2015 which I think is about the time they said they had some problems with the JMP plant and needed less supplied thermal heat from the e-cat. Its also about the time of the supplied electrical power "anomaly".
5. It seems he is convinced it works with steel and has a very clear idea what kind of component he wants and what it looks like. But it is not readily available.
6. I am speculating here but to me it looks like a failed or upgraded part in the JMP plant that urgently needed replacing.
This gives me the clear impression a) there was a device at JMP that was doing something that needed repairing. b) whatever that device was it is as intriguing as the ECat.
-
I thought his estimate gave 'W = 5, 67 × 1012 × 0.9 × 4.8 × 1013 = 244.9'? Where did your 20W come from?
Ok - the previous post. My point however is that the stated method of estimating output power could be out by a very large multiple:
Assumption effective radiating surface area is container surface area (probably only max factor of 10)
Assumption that radiation is Black body (could be factor up to 100 if radiation is narrow band)
Assumption peak is got from integrating radiation of a limited window (he finds peak is very close to one end of window). Even if radiation is black body that can overestimate peak wavelength by some unknown large factor, and therefore total power (if BB) by that to the 4th power.
-
Ok - the previous post. My point however is that the stated method of estimating output power could be out by a very large multiple:
So it could. I think I offered 103 as an error bar, but you went beyond that (of course).
-
Ozone generators easily create high voltage, using ladder-like structure of diodes and condensators, transformers are not the only solution. Of course they did it this way.
https://www.google.fi/search?q…951#imgrc=apaZNH5K2ZpVcM: -
The only usage for such a high voltage would be some accelerator, which would initiate the LENR with stream of electrons or protons. But after then you would need a DC voltage, not a transformer. The Van der Graaf generators were usually used for accelerator purposes.
-
So it could. I think I offered 103 as an error bar, but you went beyond that (of course).
I did not, because I went from 20W to 100mW. I'd happily go from 240W to 1W if you like...
But I don't object to your error bar. I'm just naturally cautious.
-
......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)
I think somehow, that you beat me, your error is in one case much bigger than mine!
-
[...]. In that case we have unknown input power as well as arbitrarily (could be 10s or even 100s of times) mismeasured output power. I still think my spiky waveform mismeasurement, which does the same thing, is cleverer.
You have to hand it to the guy for bare-faced chutzpah. Were the deceptions he practices not so loathsome you'd admire him.
I think your original narrative still holds. What was missing was a high enough voltage to initiate an arc across 1.5 cm in some medium within the microtube. I wish I had posted the suggestion of a transformer prior to publication of this illuminating email exchange between AR and Bass. But your idea of computing power as the product of average voltage and average current is an excellent COP generator, where COP is the inverse of the duty cycle. Then if one is not satisfied, IR cameras are there to help.
-
Then if one is not satisfied, IR cameras are there to help.
IR cameras are a thing of the past: now it's all about optical spectrometers.
BTW, for glass or crystalline materials like sapphire (which has been previously suggested as being used for the QuarkX) one also has to consider the softening temperature point.
For sapphire it's 1800°C.
-
IR cameras are good for telling what part of your tube is hot(ter). This is valuable for a plasma device like the quark for determining if the electrodes are hotter than the plasma. I.E. is a LENR reaction possibly occurring in the plasma or is it something happening at the electrodes? If the heat were being generated at the electrodes, you should see two hot spots on either side of the plasma.
-
Nickel wire/powder exposed to H2 in a heated environment can undergo nuclear reactions. (For example, the basic Focardi/Piantelli work.)
Me356 and others seem to suggest nickel wire/powder exposed to H2 which is undergoing electromagnetic stimulation to produce atomic hydrogen and ions can produce more intense quantities of excess heat. (For example, the radio frequency generators in the reactors of the first one megawatt plant, piggy backing RF frequencies onto an external heating resistor, or tuning your input frequency to the resonance frequency of your resistor to produce powerful current spikes.)
The Quark seems, on the surface, to take this basic concept to the next level -- bombarding bare protons onto the nickel cathode with significant kinetic energy. Although there could be exotic effects in the plasma, I find it likely the majority of the effect takes place (at least initially) at the cathode. If this is correct...
X quantity of electrons may be produced by thermionic emission from the nickel being heated to a high temperature by the nuclear reactions.
X quantity of electrons may be produced directly via the nuclear reactions at the cathode like Ed Storms observed in his glow discharge experiments.
X quantity of electrons may be produced by emissions from the cathode such as perhaps low level gamma traveling through to the tube and ionizing gas.
So here are three possible mechanisms that summed up could possibly account for the excess number of electrons produced. These excess electrons would then add to the current running through the tube to the anode. Obviously, a result of this increased current would be a higher magnitude of heat, light, and output amperage. The use of a highly conductive material like graphene -- maybe deposited on the anode -- could help maximize the output of the overall reactor by increasing the number of electrons captured.
The Quark is brilliant, but super duper simple in theory; conversely, preparing the nickel cathode so it can be "active" (just like how virtually all nickel fuel used in all Ni-H experiments must be prepared) could require tedious, precise, and careful work.
I bet Me356 could build a Quark X tomorrow since he understands the optimal nickel processing methods -- if he so desired.
-
IR cameras are good for telling what part of your tube is hot(ter). This is valuable for a plasma device like the quark for determining if the electrodes are hotter than the plasma. I.E. is a LENR reaction possibly occurring in the plasma or is it something happening at the electrodes? If the heat were being generated at the electrodes, you should see two hot spots on either side of the plasma.
I was referring to the fact that Rossi seems to be now determining surface temperatures using an optical spectrometer rather than an infrared camera and therefore that an entirely new set of potential issues with this kind of measurement will have to be studied.
Luckily (from JONP postings) it seems that we'll also eventually get calorimetric measurements.
-
If very well done calorimetric readings are performed -- Rossi has also said that they found a way to keep the Quark on continuously -- then they should tell us if the COP really is as high as these initial tests suggest.
The point is that with a COP of 22,000, even if Rossi is off by a certain margin it really doesn't matter! Once you get past a COP of lets say 100 you start getting into a zone of diminishing returns.
-
Rossi et al are confusing cause and effect. The strong and the weak force produce nuclear change and the subatomic particles are the effects of how those forces function. The strong and the weak force produce the pion, muons, and mesons that Rossi is now factoring into his theory. But these particles are just the effects of what the strong force is doing in LENR. LENR is a condition where the strong force changes the way it behaves. The particles are the results of this change in behavior.
Professional science states the the fundamental forces of nature cannot change unless they are affected by the application of extremes in energy. If enough energy is present, then the fundamental forces will gradually become unified. This is the main tenet in supersymmetry. This misconception is where science is going wrong in their understanding of reality. The action of the fundamental forces can be changed by special very low energy electromagnetic formating.
As witnessed by LENR, the fundamental forces do not behave in this high energy driven way. As Rossi states, these forces change when a special type of magnetism is applied to the fundamental forces of nature. Rossi has picked the quadrupole magnetic force as the factor that changes the action of the fundamental forces. This pick is wrong. Informed by other LENR experimentation, we know that the proper LENR active magnetic force format is the monopole magnetic force.
But even with this small bit of theoretical misdirection, we must give him his due. Rossi is very close to having LENR theory correct in its most basic aspects.------------------------------------
Edit to add info
There is a difference between a monopole fundamental particle, a monopole quasiparticle like the SPP, and a magnetic field formatted to support monopole flux lines.
The SmCo5 magnet produces a magnetic field that is anisotropi (almost a monopole formated magnetic field).
This SmCo5 type magnetic supports monopole flux lines of force.
That is why the SmCo5 magnet can produce a LENR reaction.
A discussion of this idea is a follows:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…eskimo.com/msg108069.html -
Everyone's is doing April jokes here: it's terrible and gregarious behavior...
-
Fascinating insight into Rossi's lack of engineering knowledge. He is a few zero's out in the voltage he needs for his device, as presumably he later found out. He has no conception of the problems generating high voltage (other than electrostatically).
The human mind is a fascinating thing. We can, as the White Queen said, believe 6 impossible things before breakfast. More to the point we can have self-consistent strands of delusion that operate, blending seemlessly with the rest. So Rossi could here be genuinely working hard to make devices he believes are masterpieces, whilst also faking the tests and everything else about them...
Then again maybe he is just thinking that plasma discharges look impressive. BLP might give him that idea.
If I understood the translation correctly, did Rossi engage in high voltages? And this is the right decision! It is necessary to catch a ball lightning that would get a model of the planet Earth! The model of the planet is transformer Tesla! Rotation of ball lightning in the reactor will give voltage to the stator winding!
-
Hello Genadiy, try to keep these stuffs in your Generator Tarasenko based on the model of the planet Earth thread. - thank You in advance.
Gennady's post moved as requested. Alan.
