​New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)​

Hi Adrian,

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

So you have seen the light after our previous exchange. Better late than never.

You may have missed the several posts yesterday where I said that we didn't have enough information to know whether a control was carried out. You and I were discussing things more at a hypothetical level.

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

I don't think you have had enough experimental experience to pontificate on the relationship of experiments to science.

In my work every day I set up controls of sorts and test hypotheses. Not of the kind done when wearing a lab coat, but quite sufficient to have a solid intuition for why they're needed. But more to the point, philosophers of science, and indeed theoretical physicists, do not require experimental experience to pontificate on these things. I will be quite happy to continue to do so, because I think this is stuff that LENR watchers should be thinking more about.

In my youth as a lab scientist, I fooled myself on a few occasions by not running the right controls for my tests and experiments. In later life, as an employer of scientist at all levels up to PhD, I observed even senior people doing the same thing at times.

I took the trouble early on to learn about hypothesis testing; particularly to identify the relevant null hypothesis

Quote from barty

http://docs.augur.net/

Thanks. That looks pretty interesting but a little complicated and better use for markets. Isn't there a better set ups for bets?

Quote from Can

There is indeed only one "proper" resistor. But the rest of the E-Cat shown (I would guess made of steel and nickel for the electrodes) is live/part of the circuit and must have a resistance itself. The current was measured without knowing the total resistance of the circuit. As the total resistance of the circuit has to be larger than that of the 1 Ohm resistor, ignoring the total resistance of the circuit would make input power calculation less conservative, not more conservative.

https://www.swtc.edu/Ag_Power/…cture/series_circuits.htm

Icircuit = 0.12A

R1 = 1 Ohm

R2 = X

Rcircuit = R1+R2

Vcircuit = Rcircuit * Icircuit

Pcircuit = Vcircuit * Icircuit

You can easily see that if R2 is larger than 0, input power would also be larger.

This is a very basic calculation by the way. Rossi must be intentionally trolling people here.

Display More

The wires and electrodes are conductors not resistors. And while they will have a negligible resistance, it will not be significant when we are talking about hundreds of orders of magnitude in terms of COP.

Adrian,

Quote from Adrian Ashfield

As was obvious from the beginning, it was not practical to make a meaningful substitute for the plasma in the E-Cat QX. All one needs to do is be careful about the amount of fluid used in the surrounding shell and measure the temperature rise accurately to get a "meaningful result." The heat loss from the liquid can be measured but is probably negligible if you are looking for a conservative answer.

Enough already.

I agree that we need not further plow over the ground concerning the conclusion you seem to have attributed to LENR Calendar. I'll just point out that in the Gullstrom paper we have two experiments. The second involves electricity going in and heat calculated from the reading of a thermometer on a heat exchanger on the output side. An obvious control here is to use a resistance heater with the same amount of input power. The E-Cat QX, because it has such a high COP, will show a higher delta T for a given input power than the resistance heater (or something like that).

If a control was not used in the second experiment, one clearly should have been. Was one used? We don't know. We do know that the check that is mentioned was to cross reference the result of the second experiment with the Bolzmann calculation for the first experiment. If the second experiment was such that a control would not have been possible, this points to deeper deficiencies in the protocol.

To summarize: in an experiment this size there should not be one but several controls, especially given the strong claim. If the protocol makes a control impossible, the protocol should be revised.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Having the reactor and sensor resistor R in series, measuring the voltage V across the whole circuit, using this as an upper bound on the reactor current (V/R) and reactor voltage V would indeed be safe and conservative.

I'm glad you can finally admit that. All it took was you slinging a handful of insults my way while I repeatedly explained this to you in a variety of different ways. All you could say is that I misunderstood electrical circuitry, when in fact it was you who did not understand (or at least pretended not to). Now, you must understand the context. Rossi told Frank that the 1 Ohm resistor is the only resistance in the circuit (yes, yes, as Can pointed out, the conductive wires and terminals have resistance, but I think we can safely discount that, because well, those are conductors).

Nevertheless, even though the 1 Ohm resistor is the only resistance in the circuit, Rossi made the point that IF the reactor had a resistance, then the power calculation would actually be more conservative. And he is right! And how do we know that? Because "Having the reactor and sensor resistor R in series, measuring the voltage V across the whole circuit, using this as an upper bound on the reactor current (V/R) and reactor voltage V would indeed be safe and conservative." And that is what Rossi was attempting to explain to Frank, and what Frank's jumbled written notes imply.

Quote

What however Rossi has clearly said, in his paper, in his comments to Frank, and in the picture on the whiteboard, is that he is measuring the voltage across the resistor. We can all agree.

Right, because the 1 Ohm resistor is the only resistance in the circuit, according to Rossi. So it would make sense to measure it in that way.

Quote

Now look at the circuit on the white board. This has plasma gen and resistor in parallel not series. In this case, the voltage across the plasma generator is precisely known (same as across the resistor). The current is not known, nor is the input power. Given Rossi's ability to write random things on a whiteboard, and so many configurations that do not safely measure power, the chances that Rossi has done this must be small. As has been pointed out normal people, given weird results like COP=20,000, do sanity checking. Rossi does not.

I'm not convinced. Those look like two blurry squares with some wires. Why do you assume that those two boxes, that appear to be connected in parallel, correspond to the plasma gen and the resistor?

Quote from Can

So is Rossi producing sparks by applying 0.1V across a 1.5cm gap? Uncredible.

How are these incomplete and/or misleading measurements not some form of elaborate trolling? He must enjoy reading the reactions.

The red "handles" certainly suggest to me at least that the electrodes within the device are movable, perhaps so an arc can be struck and then drawn out to some distance, perhaps as much as 1.5 cm. 100 mV seems low for an atmospheric arc, but in a rarified plasma, perhaps not.

[Still retaining my agnosticism, but trying to see through eyes without prejudice, perhaps in the spirit of Pascal. With gratitude to all here for their sincere efforts at critique and also toward those seeking possible understanding!]

Upside down

Can's 'R2' is the unknown resistance of the reactor, not the wiring which indeed would not likely be significant. As he points out 'R2' must be greater than zero. I think perhaps Rossi's talk of no resistance is actually Rossispeak for open-circuit which indeed it would be when not powered up.

Quote from DAK2

The confusion is simple: voltage across the resistor = meaningless calculations; voltage across the system = valid COP (assuming proper measurements, of course - which not be discussed if the initial premise is wrong).

Not necessarily. If the 1 Ohm resistor is the only resistance in the circuit (as Rossi states it is), voltage across the resistor is perfectly fine. The reactor itself generates a voltage.

Quote from BroncoBet

Thanks. That looks pretty interesting but a little complicated and better use for markets. Isn't there a better set ups for bets?

It will be simple to use. Barty linked to the developer docs.

And no, nothing better, because the centralized ones get shut down by the SEC and other agencies. The solution to this is to decentralize it.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Can's 'R2' is the unknown resistance of the reactor, not the wiring which indeed would not likely be significant. As he points out 'R2' must be greater than zero. I think perhaps Rossi's talk of no resistance is actually Rossispeak for open-circuit which indeed it would be when not powered up.

Rossi knows the difference between an open circuit and no resistance--come on. You folks immediately jump to stupidity and delusions as explanations, when perhaps things have not been well thought out for yourselves.

According to Rossi, the reactor generates a voltage potential. It generates electricity. There is no power dissipation in the reactor. It is apparently a power generator.

Edit: This is what Can said: "There is indeed only one "proper" resistor. But the rest of the E-Cat shown (I would guess made of steel and nickel for the electrodes) is live/part of the circuit and must have a resistance itself."

Quote from maryyugo

Rossi recycles the same rewarmed scam again and again. Compare the piece of junk he foisted on investors in 2011 with the garbage he is pushing now. The only difference is that instead of rusty pipe salvaged from a toilet plumbing store, he went to Home Depot and bought a $2 piece of PVC pipe. The old and the new scams will work equally well, that is to say not at all, when properly tested, which probably will be a long time in happening. Whether there really are still investors dumb enough to give Rossi money for the new silly kludges remains to be seen but I would not doubt it.

ROSSIFICTION DEVICES -- 2017 AND 2011

Not surprisingly, I have a slightly different perspective. Parkhomov once said that Rossi's experimental approach was refreshing because it did not obfuscate with shiny flanges and polished steel drums, or something to that effect. I agree with Parkhomov on that one. It would be much more flashy, and suspect in my opinion in terms of trying to hoodwink investors, if that is what Rossi's contraptions looked like.

@MY,

I thought you said you only crap on four: Rossi, Def, Steorn, and whatever the heck the other one was.

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Yes, that model can supply up to 150W. I assume Rossi is using a voltage converter to supply a typical 2-5kV plasma voltage and that 150W supply would just suffice. The fact is we really know nothing about the supply, although Rossi's request to Fulvio for a very high voltage converter supports the idea high voltage is involved.

If Rossi really has made a fundamental schoolboy error it would lead him to think that just increasing the voltage would increase the COP, thus the request to Fulvio for an unrealistic megavolt source could in his mind power an entire city.

I still can't figure Rossi out, at first I thought he was a con man, then later as someone with the goods but a bit crazy, but now I wonder if he really is just deluded.

Regarding: although Rossi's request to Fulvio for a very high voltage converter supports the idea high voltage is involved.

Rossi's patent update specifies that a 100,000 volt potential difference is applied between the two nickel electrodes at the ends of the tube. The hydrogen many not form vigorously ionized plasma because the pressure of that gas is 6 bar when the temperature of the reactor is at the operating temperature of 2700C.

It is possible that Rossi wanted to increase the voltage used by the reactor far beyond 100 KV field patent spec to increase the strength of the electric fields that provide plasma confinement to the reactor...to make those fields highly protective and impenetrable.

Rossi's march article does state that a neutral dipole based plasma is formed. It is possible that the power used in the device produces a penning trap to confine the plasma so that the nickel electrodes at the ends of the tube are protected from erosion by the plasma.

Besides the ability to confine the plasma by the tube material, this penning trap based electrode protection mechanism might be another reason for long term endurance testing that Rossi has undertaken to quality test the QuarkX(aka 5 sigma).

A more likely possibility for plasma containment is the Quadrupole ion trap.

The use of this trap configuration might be where the idea that Rossi advances in his paper to support the special EMF field being a quadrupole field. The Quadrupole ion trap might serve multiple functions: ion containment, tube protection from the erosion of the inner tube surface by the plasma, nickel electrode erosion protection, and electrostatic activation of the LENR reaction.

I don't believe that the Quadrupole based electrostatic field is responsible for the LENR reaction. I believe that the specially formatted LENR active magnetic field is a polariton generated monopole field produced by KERR effect. Any high voltage electrostatic field would do the job of symmetry breaking of the polariton current within the whispering gallery wave hosted by the Kerr effect activated nanoparticles.