New E-Cat QX Picture and New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (Very high COP reported with Calorimetry)
-
-
DNI,
The point is that you can calculate a conservative input power value of the entire circuit, including the 1 Ohm brown resistor and the reactor, with the information that we have. And in determining the COP of the system, it is the conservative input power value that is used.
This is only true if the measured volatge, 100mV, is the voltage across both resistor and reactor. So to be abel to calculate the conservative input power value with the information we have from the report we must assume that the report is wrong about what voltage is measured.
Since the report say "In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance" not through the 1 ohm brown resitance and the reactor.
-
It's correct that it is the same current but you can't calculate the power to the reactor without either the resistivity of the reactor or the voltage across the reactor.
I agree that if the voltage 100mV used to calculate the power in the report is the voltage across both reactor and resistor. Then 10mW can be used as a concervative value. But that's not how it is described in the report. And not how it seems to be conected in the picture. As Malcom describes above "the meters negative leads are connected to the junction of the reactor and resistor"
We cannot possible draw any conclusions from the information. What we can do is to make an ack that a suggested method ids ok in principle and the current stated method by Andrea is to measure over both resistors. Now how would you spoof this test? One fishy thing is that the voltage over the reactor is not measured I have a hard time understanding that such a measurement would give away any trade secrete, can that lack of measurement spoof the setup? I don't know but I surely would demand the setup in such a way to exclude any hidden energy sources.
-
"Sorry but:
NO CONTROL = NO RESULTAbsolutely correct. No-one should forget this. And it seems a relatively simple set-up, so no problem to run a simultaneous control, with all connections in full and obvious view
When are you going to tell the hot fusion scientists working on ITER that?
-
This is only true if the measured volatge, 100mV, is the voltage across both resistor and reactor.
Correct.
QuoteSo to be abel to calculate the conservative input power value with the information we have from the report we must assume that the report is wrong about what voltage is measured.
Not necessarily. (See below.)
QuoteSince the report say "In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance" not through the 1 ohm brown resitance and the reactor.
Granted, it is an inelegant statement, but not wrong. Because the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance IS the current passing through the reactor.
-
Display More
Sparc discharges tube are extremely complex resistors... assuming 0 ohm is bare nonsense.
axil: Show me a glow discharge at 100mV that triggers just a chemical reaction. The whole world should fall apart according your logic ...
(If you strip off your socks, then you get some 100Volts...)
The flux-reduction of joining a proton/neutron can be exactly calculated with Mills physics. If you (or Gullström) uses the standard blabla of standard blabla physics you are way off the target. But the point is where do you get the neutron from ?????
I meant to say an electrostatic potential of between 50,000 to 100,000 volts
https://patentscope.wipo.int/s…621/PDOC/WO2016018851.pdf
-
DNI,
The point is that you can calculate a conservative input power value of the entire circuit, including the 1 Ohm brown resistor and the reactor, with the information that we have. And in determining the COP of the system, it is the conservative input power value that is used.
DNI agrees with you on this, but maintain that this is an after construction. I maintain that it does not matter, let's give an ack on what is a good method and if not employed in a proper validation run we can bash it.
-
The flux-reduction of joining a proton/neutron can be exactly calculated with Mills physics. If you (or Gullström) uses the standard blabla of standard blabla physics you are way off the target. But the point is where do you get the neutron from ?????
Mills blabla physics is an illusion...at least in terms of transmutation which Mills totally discounts.
-
Display More
"Sorry but:
NO CONTROL = NO RESULTWhen are you going to tell the hot fusion scientists working on ITER that?
Is two wrongs equal a right?
Sometimes you find that you cannot employ good controls or use scientific principles like a double blind tests. For this case it's so easy that I think they have actually used a control but not published it. In case of ITER it's super expensive and not practical to do a full scale control. I'm sure they work around this by testing parts of the system thoroughly and there controls may have been used if applicable.
-
Display More
The flux-reduction of joining a proton/neutron can be exactly calculated with Mills physics. If you (or Gullström) uses the standard blabla of standard blabla physics you are way off the target. But the point is where do you get the neutron from ?????
Mills blabla physics is an illusion...at least in terms of transmutation which Mills totally discounts.
explain
http://www.c-lambda.se/a-deep-question.html
Is it just a coincidence?
-
Quote
So there is no way of knowing for sure from his figures what the input power is.
Not from his idiotic diagram and photo. But it's not rocket science. One easy way is to provide power to Rossi's stuff from a DC to DC converter of known efficiency. And modern DC to DC converters are very efficient. You would use a filtered and properly metered DC supply upstream of the DC to DC converter. More than sufficient accuracy would be obtained this way and variations in the impedance of the plasma device would not materially affect the results. This sort of scheme (or another isolation strategy) is what had been recommended for the various ecat experiments in 2011 - 2015 but Lewan and the Swedish blind mice ignored those suggestions, much to Rossi's delight.
-
When are you going to tell the hot fusion scientists working on ITER that?
The fact of ITER not having a control is not an argument for the omission of a control in a benchtop experiment that would in a scientific context have not one but perhaps several controls.
(In reality, I don't think we know whether controls were carried out because the experimental writeup is so spare. Which is itself fatal to a proper assessment.)
-
e.g. the spin is ℏ/2 due to the laws of thermodynamics.
I thought that Mills rejected quantum mechanics. ℏ/2 cames from quantum mechanics. How does ℏ/2 come from the laws of thermodynamics?
-
Rossi is doing what usually occurs in product development: refinement, simplification, and the improvement of reliability, all of which take time (usually years).
Too bad he took the 1MW off the market, as it does look like the QX is a long ways from commercialization. Maybe now, those customers Rossisays "no longer demand" the 1MW, and only want the QX, will change their mind?
Why not, as it is an off-the-shelf, customer tested, certificated, refined, and ready for market "as is" product? They could start saving the planet now, and wrap it up once the QX comes on line.
Edit:
- Obro
July 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
What are your plans for the regular e-cat(not the QuarkX)?
Do you still intend to produce it, and if yes, would it be this year?Kindest regards,
Obro - Andrea Rossi
July 9, 2017 at 3:55 PM
Obro:
The matter of the fact is that our Clients are all waiting for the E-Cat in the QX version.
We will go where the market will want us to go.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
- Obro
July 9, 2017 at 3:02 PM
-
Quote
Rossi is doing what usually occurs in product development: refinement, simplification, and the improvement of reliability, all of which take time (usually years).
Complete bullpuckey. Rossi does only badly designed setups intended to deceive with mismeasurements and confusion. Your theory of typical industrial development is also wrong. When Tesla decided to build electric cars, for example, they first sold the very limited, tiny and not popular roadster. But you could buy and experience one. Nor did the impending release of the more economical Model 3 prevent the active marketing of the much more expensive models S and X.
As has often been pointed out but you keep pretending you don't know, even the simplest earliest ecat which warmed water and made 6 - 10kW for a year on a thimble sized charge of fuel (Rossi's claims) could have been sold in the millions or hundreds of millions world wide as a simple space and water heater. Rossi and his victims didn't do that because Rossi never delivered one that worked to ANYONE EVER. Same with the so-called megawatt plant which Rossi pretended he had sold to a military client in 2011 and then said he had sold 12 more. Sure he did. And the claims got more and more moronic as time went on until now we're at the pencil sized device that makes heat, light (any frequency you like) and electricity. Yah shoore. IHFB, you'd believe ANYTHING Rossi told you-- even if told you his sh*t was roast beef.
-
e.g. the spin is ℏ/2 due to the laws of thermodynamics.
I thought that Mills rejected quantum mechanics. ℏ/2 cames from quantum mechanics. How does ℏ/2 come from the laws of thermodynamics?
skip that, that was an speculation. It should be that a each loop have two possible direction and they coop to point in the same direction, much like magnetic materials.
then by setting the resulting angular momentum to that of intrinsic spin you get the math. Then the shell precess and so producing another hbar/2 in angular momentum
resulting in the hbar angualr momentum of the electron. The thing is that using this model, making sure the angular momentum is correct as meassured you will get the
correct ionization energy. E.g. ionisation energy is predicted correctly by fitting the angular momentum.
-
Hmm, one (maybe a little crude, but fun) way to determine the COP could be to feed it with a couple of mW and then "force" Mary, THH, Shane, IO, Malcolm, DNI, Eric, etc to put a finger on it. The sound they make will correlate with the COP ... And it will be a hit on the tube
-
Display More
"Sorry but:
NO CONTROL = NO RESULTWhen are you going to tell the hot fusion scientists working on ITER that?
Oh, I told them. But they ignored me too!
-
skip that, that was an speculation. It should be that a each loop have two possible direction and they coop to point in the same direction, much like magnetic materials.
then by setting the resulting angular momentum to that of intrinsic spin you get the math. Then the shell precess and so producing another hbar/2 in angular momentum
resulting in the hbar angualr momentum of the electron. The thing is that using this model, making sure the angular momentum is correct as meassured you will get the
correct ionization energy. E.g. ionisation energy is predicted correctly by fitting the angular momentum.
Mills is accepting the value for the intrinsic spin of an elementary particle which is a foundational assumption of quantum mechanics. Mills seems to be picking and choosing what he likes about QM and what he does not like so that the numbers that he gets works out to what he likes.
-
Tony, we're trying to understand what's going on with this experiment with what information is available. Is this of any interest to you? Or do you just assume the results as stated without any critical reserve?
