A simple wire coil with a nickel or cobalt core would do it.
That is called a choke.
A simple wire coil with a nickel or cobalt core would do it.
That is called a choke.
I think they have gotten to Alan. Maybe spiked his beer? He went there to report, and all of a sudden, he gets tight lipped.
One more try before you go to bed Alan. In general terms, after the test, do you:
1. Feel better about the QX technology.
2. Feel about the same as before. This test was undefinitive.
3. Feel less optimistic.
3. Feel like you had too many beers.
1. I never felt more than curious about the QX. I remain curious.
2. See point 1 above.
3. Always optimistic. For example, I have 3 sons, I am sure I fathered them all.
3 . Was this a trick? You did 3 twice, I can still count.
ETA. You are quite right about bedtime. Long day today, another one tomorrow. BFN
Does the QuarkX scale well?
I don't think anyone outside Rossi's group knows. That the design has shrunk in size and power from the early versions (used to be 100W) suggests that it will be difficult to scale up.
Rossi seems happy with the present design and it would do well for many applications. I hope he finalizes it and start mass production. I'm sure he won't stop working on new designs.
From Mats Lewan
‘I think the demonstration today went well, with some limits that depends on what Rossi will accept to measure publicly. The problematic part is that the voltage over the reactor could not be measured, which would be necessary to calculate the electric power consumed by the reactor. In the calculations made by Rossi and Eng. William S. Hurley, who oversaw the measurements, the power consumed by the 1-ohm resistor was used as input power instead, assuming that the plasma inside the reactor has a resistance close to that of a conductor, thus consuming a negligible amount of power since the voltage across the reactor would be very low.
The dummy measurements that I insisted to do, which can be seen in the slides, consisted in replacing the reactor, first with a conductor, then with a 800-ohm resistance. Using a conductor gave a similar electric situation as when the reactor was running—a voltage across the 1-ohm resistor of about 0.4V, slightly higher than the 0.3V measured with the reactor in the circuit. Using a 800-ohm resistor instead of the reactor the voltage across the 1-ohm resistor was about 20mV. At that point we also measured the total voltage over both the 1-ohm and the 800-ohm resistance together, basically the output voltage of the black box power supply, which was then about 12V. That is consistent with the 20mV voltage across the 1-ohm resistor (it should be 15mV).
The 800-ohm dummy was used since at the current flowing through the circuit with the reactor – about 0.3A – the reactor would have consumed 72W electric power if it had a resistance of 800ohms. However, this would have meant that that the voltage across the reactor would have been about 240V. The dummy measurement with the 800-ohm resistor indicated three things: 1. The voltage from the power supply only reached only about 12V as a maximum. 2. If the reactor had a resistance of that order of magnitude it would have resulted in a much lower current, about 20mA, than the one measured with the reactor in place. 3. The power consumed by such a resistance in the circuit would only be about 0.3W.
From the two dummy measurements we can also conclude that the black box power supply adapts its output according to the resistance in the circuit, or rather, to how the reactor behaves. The dummy resistance that most closely replicated the situation with the reactor was using a conductor, indicating that the reactor really behaves as a conductor. This means that the power consumed by the resistance and the reactor together was about 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.9W, as used in the calculations, but that in fact, the reactor consumed a negligible part of that power, resulting in a COP that could be in the order of tens of thousands or more.
We can make another possible conclusion. Since the voltage across the 1-ohm resistance, while using a conductor as a dummy, was about 0.4V, the total output voltage from the power supply at normal operation could be about 0.4V, indicating that the voltage across the reactor could be at the order of magnitude of 0.1V, and the power consumed at 0.3A would be about 0.03W. This would result in a COP of about 1,000. (I don’t remember the value of thermal output power from the reactor, as calculated by William Hurley, but I think ot was about 30W).
Having said this, it seems strange that the power supply, even if it is a complex design, is such that it needs significant active cooling, resulting in a total system that has a COP of about 1 or less at this point. On the other hand, this is what Rossi explained to be one of the challenges in further development of the system.’
Let's wait for another year ... Meet me again at LENR forum at the end of 2018
It will be at least a year before Rossi has the ability to mass produce the QX.
Borrowing Mary's pink unicorn and waving its magic horn you KNOW it should only take four or five weeks or less according to the pathoskeptics who keep asking why he hasn't already.
That Rossi only has to convince his backers prpbably never crosses your mind.
Low content posts in this thread are -as of now- likely to end up in the 'clearance' thread without individual explanations. I'm sure that this might upset a few people, but heck, sometimes life is cruel. Well past my bedtime, curious skypers calling me from japan and usa are to blame.
From Mats Lewan...
Is it physically possible for a power supply/amp to have 0.45% efficiency? (0.09/20)
(SAIPEM, Nasdaq SAPMY)
You are on a roll today my friend! Something new for me in your video...Fabiani at that Rossi conference way back in Sept. 2012. About the time Penon's name popped up on JONP. So that pushes Fabiani's timeline with Rossi further back, *professionally*, then I knew of before. Yes, in his deposition, he admits being family friends with Rossi way back from the old country, but this is professional like I said.
Now, we have all these pieces falling into place, so where do we go with it? Keep digging.
New update on ECW (doing great job there BTW) from Lewan, to add on to what Alan already copied here:
Mats also sent me the following:
DATA REPORT OF THE MEASUREMENTS MADE ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2017 ON THE E-CAT QUARKX TESTED AT THE IVA, GREV TUREGATAN 16, STOCKOLM, SWEDEN.
Duration of the measurement period: 1 hour: the measurement has been made after the apparatus has reached a reasonably constant temperature
amount of water pumped through the reactor: 1 000 g
Water temperature at the input of the reactor: 21 C
Water temperature at the output of the reactor: 41 C
Delta T: 20 C
Energy produced: 20 x 1.14 = 22.8 Wh/h
Measurement of the energy consumed ( during the hour for 30′ no energy has been supplied to the E-Cat) :
Wh/h 0.09/2= 0.045
Ratio between Energy Produced and energy consumed: 22.8/0.045 = 506.66
Instrumentation used for the measurements:
Oscilloscope Tektronix TBS 1052B
K probes Omega supplied and calibrated by Prof. Bo Hoistad of the University of Uppsala
Water pump Prominent. The water pumped for 1 hour has been poured in a plastic container seat on a scale to measure exactly the water passed through the E-Cat.
Temperature Data Logger: PICO Technology
The scale to weight the water passed through the E-Cat has been supplied by Eng. Mats Lewan of Stockolm
William S. Hurley
Senior Engineer- Endeavor
Hmm, thank you Ahlfors. Now I see. I think. This Hurley, is he into the pool business?. If so, and it looks like he is, it all makes sense. H2O, calorimetry, pools, Los Angeles, yes, changing the world for the better. I would understand if so.
And this "Andeavor", I missed how that plays into this? Could you provide a few more images, or maybe sign language?
They say it was "off" half the time. Was it disconnected or just claimed to be off? Was the current observed to go to zero on the R during that time?
23 W hours or about 83 KJ's. If the volume of the device is around 1 liter, stored heat in 1l of water is about 4 kJ per degree. So if the pre heating of the device was to say 80C then, it could store (80-20=60 delta T or 240 kJ. So you cannot rule out energy storage from the "pre conditioning" of the device. (block of cast iron would also give about the same storage)
What do others calculated the energy of a 1 liter of cast iron going through a delta T of 60C? (about 189 kJ or around 50 W hrs.
What am I missing here?
And then there are phase change energy storage......
As usual, a nuclear powered reactor which is claimed to run for a year on trivial milligrams of fuel runs for an hour in a very questionable measurement setup which, I am pretty sure, nobody except Rossi really understands. Certainly an earthshaking performance that was. I guess having dinner was more important than winning the Nobel Prize or saving African children. I remember something similar with the original ecat. Can't continue. Have to go eat and rest. ROTFWL!
Which may account for the fact that Google News doesn't list a single mention. No AP release, no New York Times, no Washington Post, no military newspaper, no high tech web site. Anyone know if the Stockholm press picked it up? Did it even get a mention in NyTeknik?
I searched a little, and this Hurley guy is not adding up to your images for me so far. I will look again tomorrow. No guarantees though, as, after our intrepid reporter gets a well earned good nights sleep, there should be a lot of other things going on.
It's what we been waiting for
Is Fab Fulvio back on the top table? Or just a slightly chubbier look-alike?
Video of demo
thx for update
Has the spectrum of the light emitted by the QX been posted?
The whole idea that the psu needs a 60W cooler is ridiculous... Ceiling fans run on less power.
The larger of these passive heat sinks will handle 60W and keep a cpu to around 60C - with no fan at all if you mount it horizontally outside the box.