ENG8 - new plasma energy system

Quote from Alan Smith

I worked out what that was

But if did not tell you, and you worked it out, how is that violating the NDA?

i tried to understand your chart and the total pressure variation..

Quote from Frogfall

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean.

Maybe it would be best to wait until Alan Smith returns, so we can have a full update.

Quote from Cydonia

i tried to understand your chart and the total pressure variation..

The scale is a bit misleading, yes.

The blue region, below atmospheric pressure (zero Pa), is on a different scale to the region above atmospheric pressure.

Lowest pressure is only 0,035 Pa below atmospheric (so hardly any depression)

The highest pressure, at the periphery, is 1100 Pa above atmospheric.

This is still not a particularly high pressure (0.011 bar, gauge) - but air is not particularly dense, and 20 m/s at a radius of 100 mm isn't particularly fast.

Well strange anyway if things become non disclosed don't bother more speculations..

In this way, why you tried a link with the Rayleigh plasma which runs at very lower pressure ?

Quote from Frogfall

The scale is a bit misleading, yes.

The blue region, below atmospheric pressure (zero Pa), is on a different scale to the region above atmospheric pressure.

Lowest pressure is only 0,035 Pa below atmospheric (so hardly any depression)

The highest pressure, at the periphery, is 1100 Pa above atmospheric.

This is still not a particularly high pressure (0.011 bar, gauge) - but air is not particularly dense, and 20 m/s at a radius of 100 mm isn't particularly fast.

Display More

Well, after took time to read the patent i can say that basically this is like Muzuno, a process of discharges in water.

However the team used one more electrode to stabilize "enlarge the plasma area".

In fact the vapor creation during discharges implies a plasma unstabilized this is why the team used another AC circuit to help for that.

About the Vortex it helps too to keep an enlarged plasma however maintly to well tune the cavity size in water by cavitation ( Storms NAE).

In parallel, some gases are included in the water by pressure.

Again, some magic powders are added by electrode decomposition.

My feeling.. very complex engineering now if they have found some xsh...

Quote from Cydonia

why you tried a link with the Rayleigh plasma which runs at very lower pressure ?

Rayleigh "Activated Gas" is not just plasma. There is a combination of ionisation, dissociation, and excitation. The effect is visible, and lasts for many minutes, when at very low pressure - which is how it was originally discovered, and studied.

The ionisation, dissociation, and excitation also happen at higher pressures - although probably in different proportions. However the subsequent thermalisation, recombination, and relaxation happen so quickly that the process isn't readily visible.

I've recently been looking at how these processes might affect gas behaviour in closed (Stirling & Ericsson) cycle machines - as there has always been a problem when analysing the cycles using classical thermodynamic theory (especially for small, high speed, machines that include regeneration). Although there aren't any electrical discharges in these machines, turbulence, thermal shock, and acoustic vibration will affect the gas molecules in extra ways that are not taken into account in classical kinetic gas theory.

I hope that explains why I've thrown Rayleigh into the possible hypothetical mix.

Well, i understand you postulated that it exists a kind of hysteresis by gas dissociation/reassociation/excitation, generating xsh..

in this way what kind of Rayleigh paper you referred ?

Below an easy reading to better understand how classic plasma is working... ( No Hysteresis..)

Quote from Frogfall

Rayleigh "Activated Gas" is not just plasma. There is a combination of ionisation, dissociation, and excitation. The effect is visible, and lasts for many minutes, when at very low pressure - which is how it was originally discovered, and studied.

The ionisation, dissociation, and excitation also happen at higher pressures - although probably in different proportions. However the subsequent thermalisation, recombination, and relaxation happen so quickly that the process isn't readily visible.

I've recently been looking at how these processes might affect gas behaviour in closed (Stirling & Ericsson) cycle machines - as there has always been a problem when analysing the cycles using classical thermodynamic theory (especially for small, high speed, machines that include regeneration). Although there aren't any electrical discharges in these machines, turbulence, thermal shock, and acoustic vibration will affect the gas molecules in extra ways that are not taken into account in classical kinetic gas theory.

I hope that explains why I've thrown Rayleigh into the possible hypothetical mix.

Display More

Quote from Cydonia

Well, i understand you postulated that it exists a kind of hysteresis by gas dissociation/reassociation/excitation, generating xsh..

I am not claiming that these processes produce excess energy. I'm just saying that they may need to be incorporated into any model that results from attempts to analyse the energy dynamics of this "air cell".

Unfortunately Lord Rayleigh died before he was able to develop the science further. Continuing research has led to a couple of documents mentioned in the "useful book thread".

Those "plasma" slides, while good, are very much a classical view of the topic. Possible quantum effects involving Spontaneous Emission and Stimulated Emission are ignored.

Agree that light could play a role..

About Rayleigh's plasma do you have a paper excepted the Alan's one ?

Quote from Frogfall

I am not claiming that these processes produce excess energy. I'm just saying that they may need to be incorporated into any model that results from attempts to analyse the energy dynamics of this "air cell".

Unfortunately Lord Rayleigh died before he was able to develop the science further. Continuing research has led to a couple of documents mentioned in the "useful book thread".

Those "plasma" slides, while good, are very much a classical view of the topic. Possible quantum effects involving Spontaneous Emission and Stimulated Emission are ignored.

Quote from Alan Smith

I am still waiting for the data from these tests - I shall have more to say when I see it.

Alan Smith , is of course sensible to wait for data, but also impressions can be telling. Can you let us know what does your gut feeling, or your acute sense of smell tells you from what you have been able to see, touch and feel, so far?

Quote from Alan Smith

This is a scope screen-shot during a run....

Hmmm. This, sort of, reminds me of something...

I do hope they have some decent theory behind their waveform, and that the above is just a coincidence.

And for those who don't recognise the above clip...

However about this "former way", they used again a primary DC signal as carrier but also 2 other Khz AC signals most of the time.

Quote from Frogfall

Hmmm. This, sort of, reminds me of something...

I do hope they have some decent theory behind their waveform, and that the above is just a coincidence.

And for those who don't recognise the above clip...

Display Spoiler

It is from this patent.

Display More

Quote from Alan Smith

I know from experience that once you get systems running at high-temperature it is almost impossible to judge how much energy they are producing - look at the endless arguments over Lugano heat measurements for example.

Only impossible if you have a particular not-likely-to-be repeated set of circumstances all at the same time:

1. Like Levi (following Rossi) you make an elementary measurement mistake in a report and do not engage when it is pointed out
2. You by coincidence measure the one surface (Al2O3) that given that particular mistake amplifies COP by an arbitrarily large factor
3. You decide (for whatever reason) not to use the temperature measurements from a TC embedded in the system that would give direct temperature measurements and expose the mistake.

Any one of those things is extraordinary. Together they make a mess no-one but Rossi could engineer.

Not fair to use that as the yardstick for experimental integrity. Those "endless arguments" were resolved: that exactly what the measurements meant was not resolved is hardly surprising given such an indirect and flawed measurement procedure. It is like saying, after a fraudster has stolen 90% of a companies money, that there are endless arguments about the theft when the debate is about is it 85% or 95%, and no-one will ever know for sure.

THH

For my side i talked about only an Russian paper and from my memory Frogfall related the work from an Ukrainian guy.

No link with the frauster you mentioned.

Be sure that all the field stay causiously behind your conclusions ..

Quote from THHuxleynew

Uniquement impossible si vous avez un ensemble particulier de circonstances peu susceptibles de se répéter en même temps :

1. Comme Levi (à la suite de Rossi) vous commettez une erreur de mesure élémentaire dans un rapport et ne vous engagez pas lorsqu'elle est signalée
2. Vous mesurez par coïncidence la seule surface (Al2O3) qui, compte tenu de cette erreur particulière, amplifie le COP d'un facteur arbitrairement grand
3. Vous décidez (pour une raison quelconque) de ne pas utiliser les mesures de température d'un TC intégré dans le système qui donnerait des mesures de température directes et exposerait l'erreur.

Chacune de ces choses est extraordinaire. Ensemble, ils font un gâchis que personne d'autre que Rossi ne pourrait concevoir.

Ce n'est pas juste d'utiliser cela comme critère d'intégrité expérimentale. Ces "arguments sans fin" ont été résolus : le fait que ce que les mesures signifiaient exactement n'ait pas été résolu n'est guère surprenant compte tenu d'une procédure de mesure aussi indirecte et erronée. C'est comme dire, après qu'un fraudeur a volé 90% de l'argent d'une entreprise, qu'il y a des arguments sans fin sur le vol alors que le débat porte sur 85% ou 95%, et personne ne le saura jamais avec certitude.

THH

Display More