The next choice after alumina would probably be zirconia.
Good suggestion - I like it.
New Paper By Gullström, Rossi - COP 22,000
-
That is where the thrust idea comes from, the Q-X is not self-propelling.
Well at one time......but then this probably fits into the stories that begin with "Once upon a time....."
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ow-thrust-from-the-e-cat/
Dear Andrea
sorry to bother you again, but could you clarify if the thrust you have mentioned can be obtained indirectly (for example using the electric power generated by the ecat-q to drive an engine) or DIRECTLY by the ecat-q?Andrea Rossi
April 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM
Giovanni:
You never bother: our Readers never bother me.
We are trying “directly from an E-Cat QuarkX”, but we are very green on this issue ( green, in this case, means “immature” ).
Warm Regards,
A.R. -
The next choice after alumina would probably be zirconia.
Unfortunately, the electrical resistivity of zirconia drops even faster than Alumina. At 500 C it is ten orders of magnitude more conductive than at 20 C. So at operating temperature, a zirconia tube would probably look like a short circuit to any high voltage applied between the ends of the tube.
for details: http://global.kyocera.com/prdct/fc/product/pdf/material.pdf
-
If we are just guessing - Zirk/Iridium/Moly are in range. Iridium alloys.... my pick
Made-locally-by-JMP
(The link goes to a real JM sponsored journal. But maybe the folks at JTTR and this review authored by ONRL employee is confused or maybe not).It is a shame that JM never priced the products coming out of the Doral Production and Research Center. I have never heard of a Sales team so negligent.
/or unless I am reading this wrong... And maybe IH needs a sale team, to help Dewey
-
Unfortunately, the electrical resistivity of zirconia drops even faster than Alumina. At 500 C it is ten orders of magnitude more conductive than at 20 C. So at operating temperature, a zirconia tube would probably look like a short circuit to any high voltage applied between the ends of the tube.
Yes, you are correct AlanG. However, the tube will still have some metal on it - perhaps aluminum - which may dominate. The aluminum boiling point is quite high ~2470°C. It is a pretty odd device from an impedance variation standpoint. It likely won't be linear either. All the more reason not to quote a single value "resistance" for the device.
-
OK, simple questions:
Was the load resistance assumed constant ?
Was the current measured, calculated or just ignored ?
Constant resistance would be highly unlikely in a plasma.
-
Judging from the experts comments here, and even on ECW, this report has no scientific value. Honestly, after I read it, that was apparent, but just wanted to give it some time for the pros to comment...just in case.
Only thing different I could see between the past and now, is that before, Rossi found seasoned scientists with credentials to sign on, and now he is having to stoop so low as to have a young PhD aspirant do so.
-
Shane said "this report has no scientific value."
I'd agree with that.
Its much more useful to read John Goodenough's report on the new glass lithium battery.. open access at
-
Judging from the experts comments here, and even on ECW, this report has no scientific value. Honestly, after I read it, that was apparent, but just wanted to give it some time for the pros to comment...just in case.
I too have been waiting for the experts to comment. I have specifically ask them multiple times to render an opinion on the critical opinions expressed in this paper. But they are not going to do it.
Regarding:
QuoteSummary and discussion
The needed parameters are not known from experiment except for the spin polarizability constants. Also the long range potential from σI=2 is unknown for
both detailed theory and experimental. To extract those constants experimentally
a theoretical way would be to use ππ-lepton scattering with a measurement
of nucleon properties in a nearby region. Practically it is questionable if a pion
beam with high enough luminosity is possible and to construct.The main conjecture of this paper is that the strong force acts at a distance between nuclei to effect nuclear changes. The author says that the long range potential of the strong force carried by its force carrying particles are not known. How far that this remotely acting long range force can reach is yet to be determined.
This summary speculates about a if and how a pion beam can be produced by the Rossi reaction. But the production of pions also means that their decay products: muons will also be produced. The production of muons is not good news for LENR science. Muon production could put the LENR reaction under control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC).
Anyone who is interested in investing in the LENR reaction should make it a priority to find out is muons are produced by the LENR reaction. The future of LENR depends on this factoid of information. The way that the LENR market develops depends on how much it is regulated.
-
I like how people say it will never work! We would still be sitting in a cold dark cave if that was true.
-
I too have been waiting for the experts to comment. I have specifically ask them multiple times to render an opinion on the critical opinions expressed in this paper. But they are not going to do it.
There are good reasons for no comment. I'll give you four:
1) The Gullstrom report claims to be validated by the "experiment" reported, and yet the experiment is barely reported on, certainly not with enough detail to draw any serious conclusions from it, and nothing from the report seems to be based on anything from the experiment.
2) The Gullstrom report relies in part on isotope transformations from the Lugano report. But the Lugano device either did not make any excess heat outside of the noise, or only just made the same amount of heat as a solid alumina tube. So the isotope transformations there, if real, do not indicate any energy transfer from nucleii.
3) The Gullstrom report relies in part on Parkhomov's reported isotope shifts, which are barely changed in the supplied reference, and quite possibly not changed at all, but appear to be so only due to (undefined) analytical uncertainties.
4) Neither the quark demonstration, the Lugano demonstration, nor any of Parkhomov's demonstrations have been replicated by the designer of the demo devices, nor anyone else. Basing theoretical work on non-replicable "experiments" is very sketchy, especially when the results that "prove" the effect have orders of magnitude differences between various metrics.
-
For the love of Aristotle, can someone explain to me why a device with a COP of 22,000 requires any input of electricity at all? Why not simply generate electricity with any simple thermoelectric converter near the hot end and use its output to furnish a few milliwatts to drive the reactor? 1/22000 of the output will do the job-- so any TEC, no matter how inefficient, will do. Is Rossi so whacko or stupid he can't see why his silly fabrication would not need input power were it real? How stupid or insane do the investors Rossi hopes to grab with this moronic subterfuge have to be?
-
4) Neither the quark demonstration, the Lugano demonstration, nor any of Parkhomov's demonstrations have been replicated by the designer of the demo devices, nor anyone else. Basing theoretical work on non-replicable "experiments" is very sketchy, especially when the results that "prove" the effect have orders of magnitude differences between various metrics.
You could make this argument for every subsequent replication (e.g., Nissan). Nobody has replicated the Nissan demonstration. Well, no, the Nissan demonstration is a replication itself. Just as the Parkhomov demonstration is a replication of the Lugano experiment. So on the 10th replication, you could still make the same argument: nobody has replicated the 10th replication! This is a wonderful example of moving the goal posts, and what tends to cause division in the LENR community.
-
Why not simply generate electricity with any simple thermoelectric converter near the hot end and use its output to furnish a few milliwatts to drive the reactor?
MY, do you have evidence that this has not been done? We don't know how long Rossi has had this particular device with these characteristics. We know the QX has been undergoing rapid iteration: just follow the story a little closer and you might comprehend that. Maybe this is being done as we speak. Who knows? Not you. And not us. So your suggestion that it must not work because it can not work is merely conclusory.
-
You could make this argument for every subsequent replication (e.g., Nissan). Nobody has replicated the Nissan demonstration. Well, no, the Nissan demonstration is a replication itself. Just as the Parkhomov demonstration is a replication of the Lugano experiment. So on the 10th replication, you could still make the same argument: nobody has replicated the 10th replication! This is a wonderful example of moving the goal posts, and what tends to cause division in the LENR community.
If (!) there would have been any officially and correctly documented and tested replication - then the public would have known and recognized, wouldn't you agree? Only relying on those kind of Rossi says, Parkhomov says, Lugano says, me356 says....doesn't bring this technology to light from the dark side of the moon for the earths' benefit. It will all remain in rotten garages and behind lab doors and secret customer areas. Come on - where are tests and descriptions and patents that allow for a reliable replication? Did someone ever really something twice, exactly in a way that we can call it a replication? The only guy who seems to be able to change all this entire LENR mess is Rossi. But he is not willing to cooperate nor give any true public demonstration of waht he has... and will probably take all his nice and groundbreaking knowledge with him at some day...I am convinced there are ways to light the new fire if properly done and analyzed, tested and replicated. Smart people will find a theory that fits and this is all I and a lot if not all other here are waiting for.
-
This thread convinces me that Rosi is a true genius.
But not as an experimental scientist, or a theoretical physicist.
This beautiful plasma discharge from a sapphire tube seems to be highly optimised for blog misunderstanding and experimental misconception.
Input power: requires continuous measurement with some care since discharge might have HF oscillatory component. Will dramatically change as discharge develops.
Output power: estimates from radiation are very unsafe since effective surface area of plasma is much smaller than tube and plasma emission is not Boltzmann distribution. Assumption that surface of sapphire rod attains temperature measured is completely bust since it will mostly allow power out - and be cooled externally, therefore as in any discharge tube be much much lower than plasma.
That Rossi manages to get a graduate (or is it post-doc?) student to go along with this shows:
(a) his genius
(b) (if you want to be uncharitable) that theoretical physicists are remarkably bad experimentalists!
Anyone who sees the experiment in this paper as evidence of anything other than Rossi's genius at PR is very severely deluded. Looks like there are a few of those over on ECW - I'd hope not here.
-
Display More
- Frank Acland
March 16, 2017 at 11:04 PM
Dear Andrea,
Are you using graphene to generate electricity by thermoelectric means with the QuarkX?
Thank you very much,
Frank Acland
- Andrea Rossi
March 17, 2017 at 8:08 AM
Frank Acland:
Not exactly: we are using the high conductivity properties of graphene to recover the electricity produced directly inside the QuarkX. It is an experimental phase. Now we know and have measured the electricity produced by the QuarkX and we are experimenting how to harness it efficiently.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This statement that the excess electrons are produced inside the QuarkX does not jube with this experiment that deduces that the plasma is neutral: "This implies that the plasma has an equal amount of positive ions flying in the direction of the current and negative ions(electrons) in the opposite direction."
The test for static charge on the structure of the reactor implies that there is no electrons being emitted by that structure.
The graphite must be located on the outside of the cell and is picking up charge from the reactor. Where is that charge coming from?
Arghhh, finally. Was only waiting for more nonsense of You:
1) Negative ions ( electrons ) ??? WTF.... go back to school boyo.
2) Graphite ? Who is talking about pencils here ?
3) One does not play with a prototype, one uses the exact design of this prototype, to present it to an audience.
The presentation was delayed ( suddenly, because somethin broke BUT was fixed again, DIRECTLY ??? ) . We want to see nothing but excess heat, as promised. - Frank Acland
March 16, 2017 at 11:04 PM
-
"Why not simply generate electricity with any simple thermoelectric converter near the hot end and use its output to furnish a few milliwatts to drive the reactor? "
MY, do you have evidence that this has not been done? [...] Maybe this is being done as we speak.
Rossi has often claimed to have proven infinite COP or the so called "self sustain mode" with his demos of the early ecat. Also, an ill founded attempt was made by Levi & co to explain in TPR1 that the "off" portions of the time period were proof of "heat after death" of the hotcat. The problem so far is that this "proof" of output energy with zero input energy was systematically compatible with the thermal inertia of the devices.
Rossi will certainly do something similar with the quark x. So keep an eye on the size of the feedback and control box when he does. And think whether it may have enough energy storage capability to provide the output energy that will be recorded during the demo after unplugging.
-
Display More
There are good reasons for no comment. I'll give you four:
1) The Gullstrom report claims to be validated by the "experiment" reported, and yet the experiment is barely reported on, certainly not with enough detail to draw any serious conclusions from it, and nothing from the report seems to be based on anything from the experiment.
2) The Gullstrom report relies in part on isotope transformations from the Lugano report. But the Lugano device either did not make any excess heat outside of the noise, or only just made the same amount of heat as a solid alumina tube. So the isotope transformations there, if real, do not indicate any energy transfer from nucleii.
3) The Gullstrom report relies in part on Parkhomov's reported isotope shifts, which are barely changed in the supplied reference, and quite possibly not changed at all, but appear to be so only due to (undefined) analytical uncertainties.
4) Neither the quark demonstration, the Lugano demonstration, nor any of Parkhomov's demonstrations have been replicated by the designer of the demo devices, nor anyone else. Basing theoretical work on non-replicable "experiments" is very sketchy, especially when the results that "prove" the effect have orders of magnitude differences between various metrics.
This same lack of information certainly hasn't kept you from reaching conclusions regarding Rossi and Doral test, so why would it matter here.
-
But the Lugano device either did not make any excess heat outside of the noise, or only just made the same amount of heat as a solid alumina tube. So the isotope transformations there, if real, do not indicate any energy transfer from nucleii.
OMG! Are you showing off your "skills" in logic reasoning? Even though you try really really hard to deny it, there is the possibility that the Lugano device worked more or less as stated in the report, which would put it all in a somewhat other perspective, right?
