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

• Certainly measured wrong.

This is just your prejudice ! THH This is a repetition of Lugano with a better technology.

From the paper:

W=5,67×10^12×0.9×4.8×10^13=244.9

I'm only a cable guy, used to use volts, amps, ohms and watts in kilo or milli...

Is that outcame above really correct?

There is a mistype in the exponent of Stefen Boltzmann constant. Because the unit used is cm^2 it should be 10^-12.

Is just a mistype the result is correct.

• Is just a mistype the result is correct.

@RB: Nobody measures power over a voltage, if the resistance is not known...(and do not tell us that the resistence is constant and not complex...)

I always recommend to use a small accumulator, charged with a given wattage! Most Russian experimenters use this method, which avoids unwanted cheats.

• is I^2R which means that the power can be anything in the reactor depending of the resistance of it.

A Plasma is conductive. Almost 0 resistance. The power is limited by the internal resistance of the power supply and the resistor in series.

The power measured in this way is just a higher limit of the power spent in the reactor chamber.

Correct. The picture proves noting, and Rossi's stated calculations are wrong.

so what's new?

The Rossi stated calculations are not wrong.

And this is not new. They were correct even before.

• Nobody measures power over a voltage, if the resistance is not known...(and do not tell us that the resistence is constant and not complex...)

Is a different type of experiment. Charge a capacitor with a known energy and discharge it in the device.

We use it for Plasma Focus devices.

The measure of Rossi is a higher limit. But correct to demonstrate the effect.

• A Plasma is conductive. Almost 0 resistance. The power is limited by the internal resistance of the power supply and the resistor in series.

The power measured in this way is just a higher limit of the power spent in the reactor chamber.

The Rossi stated calculations are not wrong.

And this is not new. They were correct even before.

Sure, if the resistance of the reactor is less than 1ohm, you are correct, but that is not stated in the article which shows that one need hidden facts to interpret it correctly, which indicate that the report needs to be reworked. A voltage over the reactor would be nice to have as well as possible, as supplement to really underwrite the stated resistance proprerties of the reactor.

• randombit0 : THX for the quick clarification.

Another question:

The first picture of the early E-Cat QuarkX showed mostly bright blue light and paler blue light in the centre.

From the paper I read: integrated spectrum emission wavelength is 1100nm -> that's invisible infra red.

How can the bright blue light be explained?

(Black body emission about 2700k isn't infra red, from all I know)

• Correct. The picture proves noting, and Rossi's stated calculations are wrong.

so what's new?

First Jed maintains the E-Cat QX doesn't even exist, so the photo is apparently a figment of one's imagination.

Then THH can't resist speculating in his usual negative way, that one can't determine the power by measuring the voltage drop across a known resistor in series with the reactor, to get the current, and measure the output voltage pf the power supply. As it it supposed to be DC it should be fairly simple.

Also curious is where my last post on the settlement thread disappeared to

• The 2636K = 2362 °C sounds like too much for nickel rod, nickel melts at 1455 °C. Or is it supposed to be melted?

• There is insufficient information to evaluate it. The critics are correct until further information is forthcoming.

• First Jed maintains the E-Cat QX doesn't even exist, so the photo is apparently a figment of one's imagination.

Then THH can't resist speculating in his usual negative way, that one can't determine the power by measuring the voltage drop across a known resistor in series with the reactor, to get the current, and measure the output voltage pf the power supply. As it it supposed to be DC it should be fairly simple.

Also curious is where my last post on the settlement thread disappeared to

BTW:

One of your post went into the clearance thread cause the moderators wanted to chill down the discussion me thinks.

• Then THH can't resist speculating in his usual negative way, that one can't determine the power by measuring the voltage drop across a known resistor in series with the reactor, to get the current, and measure the output voltage pf the power supply. As it it supposed to be DC it should be fairly simple.

That would be a possible way to do it. But that is not how it seems to be done in the report. The power in is calculated from "Energy input: V=0.1 R=1 Ohm → W=0.01" where V is the voltage over the 1 ohm resistor. Hence what seems to be calculated is the power in to the resistor. Not the power in to the QuarkX.

• "Input: 0.105 V of direct current over a 1 Ohm resistance. " states the voltage and resistance across both the resistor and the plasma chamber during operation.

A 2636K (atmospheric?) plasma is fully ionized and has a very low resistance.

The question is: How is Rossi generating a fully ionized plasma and maintaining it with 100mA current?

• " Unfortunately we are not given the temperature rise anywhere"

The temperature rise,T. is the stated "1.58C"on Pg 18

Cp= 0,5x4.186 J/C/g

Heat Q= CpxmxT

=2.093x11x1.58

=36.4 J

Power=Q/T

=36.4J/1.8s

=20.2 W ( written as 20Wh/h by Gullstroem/Rossi)

It would be nice to see at least 5 separate results from experimental runs

to get some idea of the error in the power figure

it should be relatively easy to take five 2 second runs and get the temperature rise for each.

• Note that even if the source is DC, the current won't be constant if you are using a series gas tube which is highly nonlinear, even containing regions of negative resistance. The gas tube is also used as a noise source, and the noise can become an oscillation at the right operating point where the negative resistance is presented. I would suspect that Rossi would not drive with a voltage source, but rather a current limit mode of a DC supply, making the voltage variable. The only thing is that the current can also now become variable because the gas tube is faster than the current control feedback loop in a current controlled power supply.

I don't trust Rossi's or Gullstrom's measurements of this. It cannot be adequately characterized by voltmeters.

• First Jed maintains the E-Cat QX doesn't even exist, so the photo is apparently a figment of one's imagination.

Then THH can't resist speculating in his usual negative way, that one can't determine the power by measuring the voltage drop across a known resistor in series with the reactor, to get the current, and measure the output voltage pf the power supply. As it it supposed to be DC it should be fairly simple.

Also curious is where my last post on the settlement thread disappeared to

Jed does not believe the Ecat works,

he never said it didn't exist.

• Note that even if the source is DC, the current won't be constant if you are using a series gas tube which is highly nonlinear,

If the COP is as high as claimed I expect Rossi just needs a simple way to keep an eye on what is happening. The paper is not intended to define the characteristics of the E-Cat QX but just adds it in the appendix to show what the theory is based on.

• Rossi's style is to advance from one convoluted, hard to clarify, poorly set up experiment to a worse one. I think he has outdone himself this time. But the style, at least, is consistent. There are even more ways to mismeasure this mess than prior idiotic ecat versions.

• Authors Gullstroem/Rossi state

"In order to validate part of the theory, we introduce an experiment that in many ways have motivated this study."

"The experiment described in appendix has both weak and strong links to the theory."

I am not sure what part of the theory the energy measurement experiment validates

That it produces energy??

None of the distinctive parts of the theory.. mesons, electrons etc are validated.

"Both weak and strong " are unsubstantiated.

Not much to discuss in LENR right now, I guess but this is nothing or less