Malcolm,
Rossi is right. Consider this handy-dandy diagram:
That is how I now understand it to be configured. So if you assign a resistance to R (REACTOR) other than zero, you are decreasing I. So by assuming that R (REACTOR) is zero, you are being conservative in the power calculation.
Display MoreIHFB: I share in the confusion. You need the total voltage into the system or better across the cell. An analogy is to measure the output of a iron by measuring the voltage drop across the cord. You can measure current but not power in that case.
For me, I did not understand how you can create a plasma with 100 mV. You could theoretically maintain a plasma with a low voltage if it was making energy. Therefore, just show that the voltage from the power supply is X and with X small and that would be impressive (at least to me).
All of this "experimentation" with plasmas is likely misguided. Has anyone seen in the past 100 years of making them? Consider how they work. They are certainly high-temperature systems. Have any extra atomic lines appeared in the spectrum from such a system? Helium or extra atoms would show this in spades. You could argue that a hydrogen lamp does not have LAH present and that is the key. Energetics and Sandia have seen strange things in plasmas but they are explainable by conventional physics and where not in the range of COPs > 100.
.
I have always wondered why all the people who have done experiments in Nanoplasmonics have never seen any LENR associated effects. This applies to the excess power from a deuterium/hydrogen lamp also. The same question arises in the work of Brian Ahern. He performed many experiments with nanoparticles and hevery produce significant heat in his experiments. How can this happen.
The input current that is being fed into the QuarkX is used to support the LENR trigger.
There is a trigger in the LENR process that acticales the polaritons that produce the LENR effect. This trigger must be applied for LENR to appear. Ub the update to the Rossi patent, the trigger is defined to be an electrostatic potential of between 50 and 100 millivolts.
This trigger is explained in this recent research into whispering gallery waves in microcavities. A symmetry breaking must occur inside the whispering gallery waves to properly orient the polariton wave so that it produces the proper magnetic profile and strength.
Either a laser pulse, a high voltage spark, or a high potential field must be applied to the polaritons to organize the rotation of the polaritons to produce the required magnetic field lines. Without this LENR activation signal, the polariton is ineffective. A broken symmetry is required to activate the LENR reaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_effect
The Kerr effect, also called the quadratic electro-optic (QEO) effect, is a change in the refractive index of a material in response to an applied electric field. The Kerr effect is distinct from the Pockels effect in that the induced index change is directly proportional to the square of the electric field instead of varying linearly with it.
It is a cruel twist of fate that leads some to stumble on this LENR trigger in their experiments and leave others to come up short of a positive LENR outcome even after a lifetime of heartbreaking effort.
Wow! Another feat of genius for the Maestro of Bodena. He created nickel62 cheaply in his lab, he sold many megawatt plants, he charmed the military, he built robotic factories, and now he conquers plasmas with a brown resistor and a pair of $5 Chinese DVM's! Nobel material.
If you follow my train of thought, you will see that I've revised my understanding of the circuit (based on new comments from Rossi).
@IHFB The paper clearly says the two volt meters measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 ohm resistor, not the resistor and reactor.
Also you can see the meters negative leads are connected to the junction of the reactor and resistor, something that's not possible with your diagram.
The paper clearly says the two volt meters measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 ohm resistor, not the resistor and reactor.
Ohms law takes various forms. You can approach it from different angles, and at different times, using different measurement points, and still arrive at the same correct answer. The current will be the same through both the resistor and the reactor because they are in series.
My diagram above fits with Rossi's clarification of how they are determining the power.
Rossi's new theory of LENR is based on the analysis of the transmutation of the fuel that occurs in the ash from the LENR reaction. I proposed this same mechanism back in a post I authored on ECat world which criticized the theory of LENR that Rossi and Cook pit forward at that time.
http://e-catworld.com/2015/05/…eaction-theory-axil-axil/
My Opinion Regarding Rossi/Cook Reaction Theory (Axil Axil)
The concept of quantum teleportation was that I put forth was termed ridiculous at that time by Rossi but it seems that the way that the ash is formed in LENR has changed Rossi's mind.
Rossi et al uses the term proton and neutron attractive potential to explain how there subatomic particles move between the various elements during the LENR reaction.
A Quantum theory
Axil Axil
Mauro:
Hmmm…very shaky…for these guys mathematic seems to be as exotic as a beach on Mars… Maybe more fit for a science- fiction movie than for an R&D, but…you never know!
Warm Regards,
A.R.
It looks like with the help of Carl-Oscar Gullström, Rossi is coming around. Carl-Oscar Gullström is also beginning to recognize the potential of a special format of EMF that produces the LENR reaction.
QuoteRossi is right. Consider this handy-dandy diagram:
In your diagram, the one ohm resistor has no purpose (other than maybe current limiting) and the voltmeters are redundant. Brilliant. And how do you know the resistance of the "reactor"? How do you know that this resistance is constant? Are you for real?
QuoteOhms law takes various forms.
Well, there are generalizations of the law but as you are citing it, Ohm must be turning over in his grave. Using Rossi's LENR energy, I am sure.
@MY,
I believe the one ohm resistor is added to ease the taking of measurements, and to be able to provably (and conservatively) demonstrate the power input of the circuit without revealing the resistance of the reactor. Using redundant voltmeters is not necessarily brilliant, but it is better than a sharp stick to the eye.
Well the paper is vague so supplementary information is needed and what Rossi now state is reasonable. To rehash IHFB post a little and focus on power.
The measured voltage are over both of the resistances e.g. you can do ...
P = U^2/(Rbrown + Rrector) <= U^2/Rbrown
Therefore this method if verified by third party is fine and not a big conservative error if Rreactor is small.
As stated before not much more to say about the input if it's really DC which of cause need to be verified. When it comes to the output heat measurement
I want to rehash that we need information about how the system behaves with a resistive load e.g. a dummy. the 10% effectivity statement indicate that in case
of honest experimentation, exactly this have been done and reached the 10% conclusion. What I'm wondering is how the oil behaves and how large the variation of
temperature in the oil is. But this is detailes that could be answered with a verification of third party test of a dummy.
Rossi is doing his usual misdirection and goal shifting instead of completing a single ecat project successfully with proper replication. If he gets money for this harebrained scheme, he will simply supersede it with a new one soon. It's classical high tech free energy fraud and conning and Rossi has always been that and only that.
I note that Rossi does not believe in running a dummy to check that his setup is working properly
Sorry but:
NO CONTROL = NO RESULT
Absolutely 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
I doubt very much that Rossi actually knows the impedance of his reactor. Although such things are parsecs from my expertise or knowledge, it seems to me that determination of the impedance of a plasma is no simple matter, and involves knowing things like the electron density of said plasma
So there is no way of knowing for sure from his figures what the input power is.
Rossi is doing his usual misdirection and goal shifting instead of completing a single ecat project successfully with proper replication. If he gets money for this harebrained scheme, he will simply supersede it with a new one soon. It's classical high tech free energy fraud and conning and Rossi has always been that and only that.
Rossi is doing what usually occurs in product development: refinement, simplification, and the improvement of reliability, all of which take time (usually years).
I doubt very much that Rossi actually knows the impedance of his reactor. Although such things are parsecs from my expertise or knowledge, it seems to me that determination of the impedance of a plasma is no simple matter, and involves knowing things like the electron density of said plasma
So there is no way of knowing for sure from his figures what the input power is.
You may be right on the first comment. As for your second bit, you may be technically right, but wrong in the sense that we can know a conservative value of the input power based on the figures, the description, and Rossi's clarification.
Got a picture in my mind.
Seeing Dott. Rossi in front of his laptop and smiling bright from ear to ear about this new thread and all this discussion about his new mockup.
And sometime he is clapping his hands and I hear his famous "he he he".
Fooled them one, fooled them twice, fooling them when ever he wants to.
SCNR!
You may be right on the first comment. As for your second bit, you may be technically right, but wrong in the sense that we can know a conservative value of the input power based on the figures, the description, and Rossi's clarification.
I believe you to be wrong. It seems to me that without knowing the ACTUAL current flowing through the ACTUAL reactor, we cannot know the input power at all. For Rossi to call the reactor impedance/resistance a "confidential datum" is a) flaky in the extreme; and b) shows that the measurement across the famous Brown Resistor is irrelevant.
I believe you to be wrong. It seems to me that without knowing the ACTUAL current flowing through the ACTUAL reactor, we cannot know the input power at all. For Rossi to call the reactor impedance/resistance a "confidential datum" is a) flaky in the extreme; and b) shows that the measurement across the famous Brown Resistor is irrelevant.
You can know it. Because it is the same current that flows through the brown ceramic resistor.
I believe you to be wrong. It seems to me that without knowing the ACTUAL current flowing through the ACTUAL reactor, we cannot know the input power at all. For Rossi to call the reactor impedance/resistance a "confidential datum" is a) flaky in the extreme; and b) shows that the measurement across the famous Brown Resistor is irrelevant.
No, this is correct for the case when you measure the voltage over the brown resistor and not both of them. The paper could be interpreted this way so I understand your point. But if you measure the voltage over both IHFB is correct. This is the method now suggested by Andrea Rossi as shown by Adrian is an ok method for DC loads. I don't know the implications for nonlinear load though. This is one of the things a third party validator need to care to validate.
You can know it. Because it is the same current that flows through the brown ceramic resistor.
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"
But we do not consider the resistance of the E-Cat, we consider it as if it is a perfect conductor, and we only consider the one 1 Ohm to make the calculation of the amps."
Sparc discharges tube are extremely complex resistors... assuming 0 ohm is bare nonsense.
Ub the update to the Rossi patent, the trigger is defined to be an electrostatic potential of between 50 and 100 millivolts.
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 concept of quantum teleportation was that I put forth was termed ridiculous at that time by Rossi but it seems that the way that the ash is formed in LENR has changed Rossi's mind.
Rossi et al uses the term proton and neutron attractive potential to explain how there subatomic particles move between the various elements during the LENR reaction.
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 ?????
