New Paper By Gullström, Rossi - COP 22,000

On the output side, perhaps an order of magnitude guesstimate by comparing what I see with lightbulbs of known wattages, although looks can be deceiving. On the input side, I wouldn't have a clue.

Quote from anotherTroll

But I still do not get it. You do feel that you are able to evaluate the credibility of the Gullström papers and even to bash them, but you are not able to determine if the input side is in the range 0.01 to 1W (two order of magnitude error acceptable here) or above?

I can readily evaluate the credibility of Gullstrom's paper, as can you, and as can anyone who knows anything about experimental method. Knowledge of electronics is not required. (1) The paper is attempting to connect mesons to poorly characterized glow discharge (hint: this is something not to do). (2) The experimental section itself lacks any discussion as to how the measurements were made, which is where expertise in electronics is relevant. A credible paper would have a credible experimental section. (3) Rossi is the second author. (4) Bob Higgins, whose opinion qualifies as expert opinion in this case (in my view at least), has strongly weighed against what details there are in the experimental section.

Where would you like to take this cross-examination? My point about the credibility of the paper is straightforward and obvious.

In the summary of the paper:

Quote

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.

Experiments have been done that determine these values and how the magnetic fields that carry the LENR reaction function. In a series of experiments done to determine if products of electric arcing could have produced the Chernobyl reactor malfunction, experimental results showed a determinative electrical based long range effect.

Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

A complete post that connects the dots are as follows:

Speculations on LENR theory, coherence, stimulated emission, and fusion

The role of spin polarizability as explained in the Rossi paper is consistent with the LENR characteristic that even count nuclei with zero total spin will react more readily to the magnetic based fields that produce LENR effects.

Quote

Anyone that apply 0.011W to a needle and get this kind of light/heat doesn't really doubt anymore if COP>1 or not

The input power was undoubtedly higher, as the study in question explicitly says, that the voltage given (0.105 V) is the voltage on the 1 Ohm shunt resistor - not the reactor itself. Given the distance of nickel electrodes 2.5 cm, the actual voltage could be four orders higher (you'll need roughly 1 kV/mm in air at room pressure for to achieve a discharge) - and after then the COP ~ 22.000 would shrink to some COP ~ 2.2 i.e. 220 %.

BTW The radiation area 1 cm2 is also pretty small and it would correspond roughly the 1 mm diameter of reactor, so that the diameter of nickel electrodes must be definitely smaller. Which surface temperature the wire of diameter 1 mm and length 25 mm could get, if we introduce a power W = 25 kV x 0.1 A = 2.5 kWatt into it? Well, pretty high and the temperature achieved would correspond the 2.5 kWatt incandescent light bulb. Does the result presented correspond some actual overunity, after then? I wouldn't say yes at the very first look.

Quote

Rossi Blog: March 23, 2017 Question:

In your recently described experiment, is the one ohm resistance the ballast resistance, the steady-state plasma resistance, or a combination of both?

Andrea Rossi's Answer:

A combination of both.

In this moment A. Rossi is losing it definitely, because no plasma would leave the 0.1 V voltage drop, not to say in serial connection with some resistor and reactor. For example the voltage drop across the arc is 15 to 20 volts when using C-276 alloy arc welding, which is essentially a short circuit situation at room pressure. The arc at lower pressure would leave voltage drop even higher according to Paschen's law. There is still a possibility, that massive emission of charged particles from LENR zone would keep plasma more conductive, but such a low voltage drop is still physically unrealistic.

Please,
There seems to be interesting information regarding laser-made-plasma here, are these forces they have seen, familiar to you folks here?

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-laser-energy-plasma.html

BR Jouni

Zephir_AWT Well I guess we need to consider that LENR fits into the picture some how. The question would be does this LENR just stimulate the heat? Or does it stimulate the plasma perhaps by stimulating proton or ion release? or does it some how enhance the voltage difference between the electrodes?

1. Paul March 23, 2017 at 4:23 PM

   Andrea,

   In your recently described experiment, is the one ohm resistance the ballast resistance, the steady-state plasma resistance, or a combination of both?

   V/R,

   Paul

2. Translate Andrea Rossi March 23, 2017 at 5:24 PM

   Paul:

   
   A combination of both.

   
   Warm Regards,

   
   A.R.

Quote from StephenC

Zephir_AWT Well I guess we need to consider that LENR fits into the picture some how. The question would be does this LENR just stimulate the heat? Or does it stimulate the plasma perhaps by stimulating proton or ion release? or does it some how enhance the voltage difference between the electrodes?

I don't see any convincing evidence for LENR there. At any case, once the voltage was measured with reactor (of unknown resistance) and shunt 1 Ohm resistor in serial, then the actual power yield cannot be estimated anyway.

One of the obvious implications of these recent QuarkX revelations found in the recent Rossi theory is that LENR theory has nothing to do with anything relating to lattice based processes. LENR exists in a plasma based environment. 28 years of palladium based hydrogen loading theory goes out the window.

What is the difference between the SunCell and the QuarkX...not much if anything.

Quote

LENR exists in a plasma based environment. 28 years of palladium based hydrogen loading theory goes out the window.

This is typical "deduction" of yours (already widely applied to extrapolations from Holmlid's experiments to cold fusion and many times elsewhere). No plasma exists in palladium loading experiments, so you can not extrapolate anything to it just from Quark-X plasma experiments. This of course doesn't exclude the possibility of plasma mediated cold fusion in Quark-X (where the palladium is missing instead), but the implicate used is nonsensical. This is just a consequence of your bridging/chaining of otherwise unrelated systems/situations based on occurrence of common keywords.

At any case, the size of reactor used was truly miniature. It's essentially a narrow capillary closed with wires at both ends. The chromatographic quartz or sapphire columns would correspond such a device. Such a thin capillaries can be sealed with oxyhydrogen or acetylen-oxygen flame or above the carbon-carbon electric arc from pencil leads.

In addition, the reactor could be realized in electrode-less arrangement, accessible to amateur experimentation: we can for example mix nickel and LiAlH4 dust and place it inside the sealed pipe into a cheap Chinese Tesla coil or similar HF discharge. The excess of lithium would maintain inert atmosphere inside the capillary. Maybe even the LiAlH4 usage is not necessary: we can for example heat the nickel dust, piece of metallic lithium from battery and some hydrocarbon (paraffin) inside the sealed quartz capillary: the lithium would reduce hydrocarbon, thus leaving free hydrogen for reaction. The lithium and hydrocarbon can be soaked into an excess of graphite powder, which would increase its surface and reactivity, it would dilute the reaction mixture and also increase its conductivity for plasma discharge.

tantalum oxide capillary tubes.

Such a capillary cannot be sealed by smelting. In addition tantalum and zirconia ceramics gets conductive at high temperature (proton conductivity) or in contact with lithium vapors (electron conductivity).

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 longer 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

The usage of pulses (voltage spikes) gives a good meaning in LENR. Piantelli and Defkalion also initiated their fusion experiments with voltage spikes.

The spectrometer they used is capable of measuring radiant power directly, within its spectral range. If the measurement from the spectrometer were included in the report, then at least there would be a better idea of what was going on.