New Paper By Gullström, Rossi - COP 22,000


  • 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.

  • 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.

    More speculation with few facts. Oh well.

  • If we take that to account it is totally useless to guess the input power. A simple circuit schematic could clarify the situation. So no idea about real COP.

  • Quote

    The action takes place inside the nickel cathode that's bombarded by protons


    The problem is, such a reaction was never observed and the hydrogen thyratrons are in the game for quite some time already. Instead of it, the bombarding of lithium with protons or deuterons plasma leads to nuclear reaction rather reliably at the voltage bellow 300 V. It's the basis of UnifedGravity Ltd. process and its patent, for example... But the reaction with lithium quenches fast once the molten lithium gets overheated and it loses its crystalline character. The question is, why not to bombard with protons some other compound of lithium, which doesn't melt so easily, preferably the lithium hydride. The so-called pyroelectric fusion also utilizes metal hydrides.

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


    @THH: Rossi is just a mirror of the LENR field. Mills told direct current produced - AR produces current. Current driven LENR works better --> AR uses current. In fact he has no clue about the underlying physics.


    But COP 3000 is no problem with current. Just read the Lipinsk patent. Certainly not with 0.1 Volt...

  • More speculation with few facts. Oh well.


    I wrote: "And Gullstrom will have needed to answer questions such as these [Is the power going into it 0.011 W or 10 W? ...] as well, or alternatively to have taken Rossi on his word instead, as he appears to have done."


    I get that you're kind of a troll here, and that you are unable for whatever reason to participate in this conversation constructively. But looking past that for a moment, do you see a third alternative to the two that I mentioned above? It is more like mathematics or logic than speculation to set out the various possibilities, but perhaps I've missed some.

  • There is certainly not enough detail in the Gullstrom experiment report to take its measurement values seriously - the described methods are full of holes. Surprised? From the court docs that Eric has so generously provided, it appears that Rossi may have been the one that [mis]directed the use of the thermal camera method at IH and in the Lugano experiment - he was IH's chief scientist. What's needed is for someone to take a leap of faith like Parkhomov did; and build one, measure it, and report it in reproducible detail. As described, the Quark-X is a simple device. In fact, I have all of the components needed to build such a thing in my lab. It would take about 2 days worth of work and some intuition. Debate on the veracity of the poorly reported measurements from Gullstrom's paper is not productive. With the man hours spent in debate, a replica could have been built and tested. Even if the replica didn't work, a lot of the properties of the device and its measurement idiosyncrasies could be ascertained.

  • I had a word with someone who knows Gullstrom. FWIW they said he is a very bright guy.


    It does mean something. But the fact that someone is bright has little bearing on the credibility of the measurements that were done. Until we have some sense of what was done and what controls were carried out, a COP of 22,000 is not credible. A description of an experiment that is so paltry that one must guess at what was done is not a good experimental description. But it is indicative of someone who, however bright in some respects, isn't on top of how to report on an experiment, and, one suspects, how to carry one out. But at any rate as a rule there's no reason to take seriously the results of an experiment that has not been adequately reported. Here I'm not saying anything revolutionary and am simply mentioning what is implicitly understood.

  • 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.

  • The current flow of R = 1 Ohm , U = 0.105 Volt may be caused by nanoscale superconductivity were the plasma is an imperfect superconductor where the current flow is caused by a pseudogap.


    High-temperature superconductivity doesn't happen all it once. As doping increases, superconductivity starts in isolated nanoscale patches that gradually expand until they take over. In this case, superconductive quasiparticles develop in the plasma so that electrons tunnel between the patches of superconductivity resulting in a pseudogap.


    Does this mean that this level of current flow is caused by Crossed Andreev reflection between two normal electrodes separated by an imperfectly developing superconductive plasma?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreev_reflection

  • Quote

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


    Unfortunately my experience with all inventors is exactly the opposite, i.e. they become secretive the more, the more they believe in success of their technology, the Me356 and A. Rossi is no exception. So your implication is completely separated from existing reality all around us - the people simply don't work in this way.


    Quote

    I am still under the strong suspicion that Gullstrom was not present at these tests.


    Maybe, but A. Rossi confirmed for ECatWorld, that Gullstrom is already member of his team and working for him.

  • The current flow of R = 1 Ohm , U = 0.105 Volt may be caused by nanoscale superconductivity were the plasma is an imperfect superconductor where the current flow is caused by a pseudogap.


    axil: Already the figure of one Ohm is simply crap, we need the correct impedance and it's time dependent function. Further on, any arc/plasma discharge has a “complicated” voltage function...


    Last but not least: You need to amplify the 0.1 Volt at least by a factor of 1000 to have some success...


    Thus we can divide the AR-COP by 1000 and thereafter by about 5, for his standard optical measurement errors. This finally might then be OK...

  • I wrote: "And Gullstrom will have needed to answer questions such as these [Is the power going into it 0.011 W or 10 W? ...] as well, or alternatively to have taken Rossi on his word instead, as he appears to have done."


    I get that you're kind of a troll here, and that you are unable for whatever reason to participate in this conversation constructively. But looking past that for a moment, do you see a third alternative to the two that I mentioned above? It is more like mathematics or logic than speculation to set out the various possibilities, but perhaps I've missed some.

    My point is that there are important facts missing, yet we go on trying to provide them by speculation. I don't have to be a genius scientist to see the futility in that. With you guys the glass is always half empty it seemes.

  • 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.

  • Is Rossi playing with Tesla coils - or why does he ask Jim Bass to get secretly ("Do not give information and NEVER say the name of me or of Leonardo!") some MegaVolt transformer ("the size must be the smallest possible")?
    See e-mails in Doc 207-47 page 11 ff)
    http://coldfusioncommunity.net…01/0207.47_Exhibit_47.pdf


    Tesla coils can give very impressive show effects:

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.