New Paper By Gullström, Rossi - COP 22,000

Quote

Judging from the experts comments here, and even on ECW, this report has no scientific value

The Quark-X/Me356 arrangement cannot be replicated - but it doesn't mean, it cannot be duplicated. Nobody did try to push corona discharge into mixture of nickel and LiAlH4 - or whatever else will remain from it - at high temperatures and it just seems for me, everyone of LENR community is dancing around this experimental arrangement like around newly established taboo for more than year already. Why? Because it's the experimental arrangement, which actually works?

Quote

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

Of course it's possible - but would you really arrange the experimental device in this way? But it just seems for me, that Gullström-Rossi report completely neglected the heat input from outside: the working temperature of reactor must be somehow reached and this heat isn't for free, especially not at high temperatures. Other than that, these experiments should be easy to replicate, as there are anecdotal reports about palladium glow discharge tube filled with hydrogen, which kept itself in glowing state, once the electricity passed through it. I presume, the QuarkX device would work in similar way.

I suspect the reactors output is a new form of electricity composed of Rossitrons rather than Electrons and the problem of self sustain is one of input/output compatibility.

Quote from andrea.s

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.

Indeed. I saw the same curve in my experiments with no "fuel." They attributed the curve shape to excess heating effects, but it is just regular old thermodynamic effects.

RB0, ...ele... and now anotherTroll. Drat that cloaking device is failing again

Quote

"The Quark-X/Me356 arrangement cannot be replicated - but it doesn't mean, it cannot be duplicated."

You mean, we are not talking about the sea, when we call it ocean ?

What I meant with it was, we already have enough of information for independent research of the same arrangement.
Of course there can be some hidden tricks, but given the reliability and efficiency reported, I wouldn't consider serious problem with it.

Quote

I suspect the reactors output is a new form of electricity composed of Rossitrons rather than Electrons

The only picture of Quark-X reactor released to public sported a significant blue glow, which could originate from charged particles (electrons) escaping from reactor.

Once we collect them, then we will generate electricity directly from nuclear reaction. This concept has been proposed many times in nuclear fusion research.

BTW it would be good if the forum registration form would contain some rudimentary IQ test - the reCaptcha is apparently too small obstacle for posting at this forum.

Quote from maryyugo

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

For a laboratory experimental device that would be annoying to implement. Plus you want control the input power carefully, and you want to measure it with precision instruments and a computer, so a conventional power supply is a better choice.

If this were a real experiment conducted by an ordinary scientist, no one would question the electric power input measurement. They do not challenge it when there is no input (heat after death), or when input is thousands of times smaller than output (with proton conductors). There is no need for a scientist to demonstrate self-sustaining operation when it is obvious that is possible. That would be pointless grandstanding. People who do not understand science might be impressed, but such people are useless. Unless they happen to be billionaires who intend to fund the research!

Quote from anotherTroll

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?

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.

I cannot comment on the validity of Gullstrom's theory, but it appears that the included "experiment" at the Doral location provided no evidence of support nor evidence to refute his theory. Including that "story" in the experimental section of his paper does Gullstrom a disservice - he might as well included a recipe for chocolate cake for all it added to his paper. Clearly the theory presented did not come from Rossi. I don't know how Rossi came to be associated with this paper, but that was a mistake. Rossi's contribution could have been the "Report of the Experiment ..." section; which, as I said, was useless in supporting the premise of the paper. Perhaps, Rossi was looking for some validation that he could show that his device worked because he was under substantial courtroom burden of evidence that his devices did not work. In my opinion, Gullstrom should edit his paper, remove that non-supporting experimental report, and remove Rossi's name from the paper as author - make it strictly a theory paper.

It did not occur to me until a second reading of the paper ... "When the current was switched on a plasma was SEEN flowing between the two nickel rods". Obviously to be seen as an identifiable plasma, the envelope of the reactor sounds like it was clear. This suggests the envelope may be fused quartz (cheap) or sapphire (expensive). Rossi claimed that the Quark would be cheap and threw out a $25 number, making it more likely that the tube he was using at the time was fused quartz. Fused quartz melts at 1650°C, which is too high to create a direct seal to the Ni electrodes, but it may have been possible to create a low temperature seal if the seal area was relatively far from the discharge area. The thermal conductivity of fused quartz is low - about 17x less than sapphire and 70x lower than Ni. Thus, heat from the discharge region would not conduct through the fused quartz as much as through the Ni rod. It may have even been possible to make the seal with JB Weld.

Quote

This suggests the envelope may be fused quartz (cheap) or sapphire (expensive).

IMO sapphire was the material used, or at least it should be for long term experiments. The reason for it is the chemistry: at higher temperatures (>700K) the lithium hydride decomposes to elementary lithium, which would reduce the quartz into free silicon. The sapphire would be more inert from this perspective (despite that at low temperatures the lithium tends to reduce aluminum from molten salts due to its higher electronegativity). At the high temperatures the aluminum (termite) is the kind and it displaces nearly all metals from their compounds.

Quote

Are You serious in presenting this silly useless nothing-saying picture as an hint/evidence for ANYTHING You say?

Well, we can see hydrogen spectrum, Cherenkov radiation and another stuffs there. A single picture indeed means nothing very much - but similar effects were also reported with Me356 or Fulvio Fabian, a close cooperator of A. Rossi. And Rossi works on "direct production of electricity" from Quark-X reactor, which "doesn't involve thermoelectricity", you can read new patents issued about it. If you connect the dots, you'll get into similar conclusions. For layman such a pictures represent just a blurred spots - but if you would get engaged an industrial espionage, you would be forced to deduce the details from way more subtle indicia. But it also requires to be an expert and to know, where to look for it, which speculations are feasible and which ones aren't. It's not job for armchair theorists, who just leaved the school and who believe, they understand physics, because they memorized few equations and ways how to solve them for ideal simplified cases. The actual physics is somewhere else.

D_R_Y seems to be having a manic kind of day. Wonder what that could have been triggered by?

@BobHiggins

Regarding: "When the current was switched on a plasma was SEEN flowing between the two nickel rods".

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.

The "black body" nature of the radiation as indicated in the following statement:

"The temperature of the surface of the reactor ( a perfect black body ) has
been calculated"

indicates that the structural reactor material enclosing the plasma is not transparent and any light produced by the hot plasma must not be seen through that structural material to make the assumption about the "black body" nature of the reactor surface temperature determination valid.