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

Quote from IH Fanboy

@THH,

It is how I interpret Rossi's additional clarification to Frank.

Here is the controversial line in the paper:
"In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance."

As with all things in life, and with language, multiple interpretations are possible. I know this frustrates many here, but such is life. Language is imperfect, and sometimes people write inelegantly, especially when writing in a language that isn't your native tongue.

I interpret both Rossi's clarification and the line in the paper to mean that the two voltmeters are measuring the mV across both the 1 Ohm resistor and the reactor. That is absurd you cry! But it is not. It is simply my interpretation based on the information that we have been provided so far. The "current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance" is the same as the current passing through the reactor. So when the author wrote that sentence, the probable intentional meaning is that the voltmeters are measuring the mV across the unit.

Display More

You don't, perhaps, understand that current and voltage are completely different? And he clearly describes measuring current via a series (current sense) resistance. That can only be done by measuring voltage across the resistance - as he says here he does.

I am concerned about your mental state given you persist in this error. It is however most illuminating for everyone else.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You don't, perhaps, understand that current and voltage are completely different?

You've got to be kidding me right? Sorry, but you're a putz sometimes.

Quote

And he clearly describes measuring current via a series (current sense) resistance. That can only be done by measuring voltage across the resistance - as he says here he does.

I am concerned about your mental state given you persist in this error. It is however most illuminating for everyone else.

You don't get nuance. Yes, you can measure the current by placing the volt meter probes across the resistor. Duh! You can also measure current how I explained, and it makes sense doing it that way both in the context of the controversial sentence, and especially in light of Rossi's clarification. Then, when you still don't get it (and you are supposed to be expert in these things), you question my mental state?

Quote from IH Fanboy

He has said many times on his blog that he is using a control reactor. Go and read it for yourself. (Yes, he has also mentioned in the past that a control is not needed, but it seems he had a change of heart.)

Perhaps it is just when some externally observed test or demo happens that controls are to be avoided? Or when writing stuff up in a paper? He has never ever had one. The nearest was the Ferrara second test, but there the control was done under very different input waveform and therefore not comparable.

Quote from Rends

This is precisely the time when every factual discussion becomes meaningless!

To be fair - my reaction here is to somone in circuit terms stating that they interpret black as white. But I apologise for the personalisation, and retract it. To be fair I linked it precisely to the persistent irrational argument, which has been well illuminated here.

@THH,

In light of your apology, I'll retract the putz. But sheeesh, you can be annoying, and seemingly willfully blind, sometimes.

@IHFanboy

I guess we can interpret words in all sorts of ways.

But do you at least agree that Rossi needs to measure voltage across the reactor in order to get a relevant measure of input power?

By "relevant", I mean either actual input or an overestimation of input.

By overestimation, I am referrring to Rossi's ignoring the resistance of the reactor.

@LC,

In his update to Frank, it is quite clear to me what he saying. That said, with Rossi, you have to fill in some of the blanks. What he means is the voltage is measured across the reactor and the resistor, and a resistance of zero is assigned to the reactor, which makes the total input power calculation (for the combined resistor and reactor) to be conservative. This is the only way to measure that makes sense, while attempting to keep some aspects confidential. We have enough information to determine that the power used in the COP calculation is conservative. THH and others don't like it, precisely for the reason that it makes sense.

Quote from IH Fanboy

@LC,

In his update to Frank, it is quite clear to me what he saying. That said, with Rossi, you have to fill in some of the blanks. What he means is the voltage is measured across the reactor and the resistor, and a resistance of zero is assigned to the reactor, which makes the total input power calculation to be conservative. This is the only way to measure that makes sense, while attempting to keep some aspects confidential. We have enough information to determine that the power used in the COP calculation is conservative. We don't have enough information to know the exact power. THH and others don't like it, precisely for the reason that it makes sense.

It would be more correct to say we don't like it because it is contrary to Rossi's stated and written words, and you support it, in spite of this, because, for you, it is the only way that makes sense. That is because, ignoring past evidence, you assume Rossi's measurements must make sense.

@THH,

It is not contrary to Rossi's words. You are interpreting his words in an unnatural way to arrive at an absurd result, because that fits with your world view.

I agree that if voltage is measured across the reactor and resistor, then we're fine.

Where the disagreement comes is from our interpretation of what Rossi says about what the voltage represents.

Not much more to discuss from there I guess.

Quote from Shane D.

IHFB,

I do not recall him saying that, but I do recall him saying a control is unnecessary as THH mentioned.

Shane,

You know me well by now, and should know that I never make claims like this without being able to back them up, right?

-------------------------------

1. Andrea Rossi January 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM

   Hans:

   
   The QuarkX is a very small thing with a rating of circa 20 W.

   
   It is inside a heat exchanger where a fluid exchanges heat with the QuarkX. The fluid remains in the liquid phase, no steam to make it easier. The amount of fluid heated is measured with precision.

   
   The difference of temperature obtained in one hour is measured with a precise thermometer. The energy consumed by the QuarkX is measured with precision. A dummy is measured in parallel.

   
   Warm Regards,

   
   A.R.

1. Maria Anderson January 29, 2017 at 7:12 AM

   Dear Andrea Rossi:

   
   The experiment on course with the Quarkx is made with calorimetric measures and in parallel with a dummy?

   
   Thank you if you can answer,

   
   Maria

2. Translate Andrea Rossi January 29, 2017 at 9:01 AM

   Maria Anderson:

   
   Yes.

   
   Warm Regards,

   
   A.R.

1. Anonymous December 15, 2016 at 7:47 AM

   Again about the measurements of the QuarkX: did you make also a dummy to compare the data with the real thing?

2. Andrea Rossi December 15, 2016 at 7:59 AM

   Anonymous:

   
   Not during the test with the independent engineer, but we made last week a dummy, just for curiosity: obviously a dummy has COP < 1, using the same instrumentation and methodology. Warm Regards, A.R.

I don't know why there is still so much confusion over the voltage measurement. From a diagram shown by Rossi a while back It's the voltage drop across the 1 Ohm resistor only.

Rossi Describing the Quark on a Whiteboard

@Can,

He is not using that little diagram to show how power is calculated. He is using it to show one way in which you can obtain the current.

He's measuring the current at the 1 Ohm resistor and deriving voltage from there.

E₂ = {V = 0.12; Ω = 1; A = 0.12} W = 0.0144

Quote from Roseland67

Jed does not believe the Ecat works,

he never said it didn't exist.

It is the same thing! Take the 1-year test of the gigantic e-cat, or whatever the heck it was called. That was a fake device, with absurd instruments. It is like the interplanetary rocket in the movie "2001." That's not a real rocket; it just looked like one from where the camera was placed. The rocket is nonexistent. It is an illusion. From the side it looks like a stage set:

Look at Penon's data and the configuration, and you see that is not calorimetry. It is not an experiment. It is a preposterous fraud. It should not fool you any more than the "rocket" shown in this photo would.

The latest Quark-X was shown only as a blue LED until recently. Apparently Rossi has now put together a more complete version. Until it is tested independently by experts, I will assume it is yet another preposterous fraud. A pretend gadget that does not actually exist, like the rocket. A fantasy. The difference is that everyone knew Kubrick did not have a real rocket. He wasn't trying to fool anyone.

Where was that photo with the whiteboard taken?

can,

It's pretty blurry, but I think I'd have to agree with you. So in light of this evidence, I'll need to withdraw my understanding of how Rossi was calculating power (although it was a sound method in its own right).

With the whiteboard as our guide, the reactor is itself probably generating a positive potential, which accords with what Rossi has said all along (that the QuarkX itself generates electricity when operational). In other words, it is more akin to a battery than a resistor. And that is probably why Rossi assigns a resistance of 0 to the reactor.

Edit: On further reflection, there is nothing to suggest that Rossi hasn't calculated power using more than one method. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Rossi was using "my" method, which provides a sound conservative value, at some point in time. Because his updated explanation to Frank causes me to lean that way.