Posts by LENR Calender

Quote from RobertBryant

Perhaps the reason for this obvious nitpicking is different from an accountant's

An accountant is accountable for what they write.. and there is some small remuneration involved.

However neither THHnew or Ascoli are accountable... although there may be some peanuts

I won't get into motivations or psychology. Ascoli just seems to have a skill that involves being able to pay attention to detail and digging into things that most would overlook.

It takes a lot of wasted energy to get upset at Ascoli's "nitpicking".

It would be much more productive for Jed to take a quick look at the most recent data and see if input power is still being calculated in a different manner for control and actual run. If yes, I would really wonder why.

Quote from Ascoli65

That wasn't the ambiguity I was referring to. The ambiguity is in the note which appears on the spreadsheet on top of the "Input power" column: "V/DC*I/DC but probably measured directly with a wattmeter"

The ambiguity is: the data reported in the "Input power" column of the spreadsheets

were obtained by multiplying the values listed in the V/DC and I/DC columns

**OR**

were directly measured with a wattmeter?

For what I have seen in the two spreadsheets of the 120W active and control tests held on May 2016 (*), the "Input power" of the control test comes from a wattmeter, while the "input power" reported for the active test was obtained by multiplication.

Can you understand the possible implications of this hypothesis?

It's not a matter of waveform, rms or ripples! We are dealing with claimed COPs allegedly ranging from 2 to 6 and beyond!

(*) Mizuno reports increased excess heat

Display More

I believe that digging into those sort of issues is important. For the same reason that an accountant will dig into the data if there is a 1 cent discrepancy. It could be fine, or it could be a much bigger issue.

Why compute input power differently for the active and control tests? If it was Rossi we would be accusing him of trying to pull a trick.

Since it's Mizuno, it's probably not a big deal, but it would be unfortunate to dismiss it as some skeptopathic fantasy.

Do we have similar data available for the more recent runs?

Quote from Curbina

You did not read Mizuno’s paper then. As magicsound pointed out, Deneum is working completely outside the low pressure range that Mizuno said is critical to achieve success.

My understanding is that they did run it at low pressure (300 Pa), except at the very end where they injected 30, then 100mbar. So they worked outside the low pressure range but only after getting a null result.

They also said that the temp went up 30 deg C suddenly. Even though they replaced the thermocouple and got the same temp, it could be some weird issue with the TC moving or failing (or even things moving inside the reactor) I think this shows again the issues with relying solely on thermocouples.

That's 1400W "output" over 750W input if your model is right, but I'm gonna wait for them to recalibrate (and perhaps repeat the experiment)

Edit: indeed you want to have calibration at a level at least double the power you expect to run IMO.

Very nicely done video. It's a pleasure to have Deneum participate in the replication effort and be so open with their results.

Given Google's tendency to patent stuff that's considered public domain knowledge [1], I'm only mildly excited about them getting into the field...

[1] Example: dropout layer in machine learning:

- paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.0580.pdf

- patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9406017B2/en

Quote from Alberto

What about a Mizuno/Rothwell demonstration? It would make things easier...

My guess is it would take many weeks to happen. Meanwhile we have Deneum video-documenting their prep and ready to run in a few days and other pioneer replicators/"analoguers" who will be ready in a couple weeks or so.

Now that we know that each cycle lasts 7 seconds, and assuming Rossi's definition of sigma 5 is related to something repeated 3.5 million times

3 500 000 * 7 seconds =

283.6 days

Quote from fusio

Why arent physicist adressing the elephant in the room??

Who on earth can state that there is no voltage drop in the reactor????

True, plasma can have low conductivity BUT to generate plasma you have to have VOLTAGE!!! and thereby resistance. His avoiding this in his calculations and thats the only reason he can state energy production with COP.

Why arent Mats Lewan adressing this?

Im really frustrated, Rossi is still trying to kill "lenr" with his stupid demonstrations and you are all fuelling this muppet show by showing up and giving him spotlight.

LENR is real but you are all mislead by the greatest puppest master...

So I suggest you all get your head out of the sand, go back and focus on real data, real experiments and real theory.

Display More

I'm not a physicist, but I've been saying since the Gullstrom paper that the second issue with the experimental setup is that the reactor's resistance might not be constant.

So, nothing new, but you did phrase it better than me.

1) We need actual input power to the reactor

2) We need it for the entire duration of the experiment

Again, I am not a physicist, but how does the reactor even receive any energy if R=0? Hint: R varies with temperature.

There's a tendency for Rossi's blog commenters to spell the swedish city "stockolm" in combination with the word "masterpiece"...

To me this isn't a successful demo. And it's not because we don't have a ready product, not dependent on what I think of Rossi. I wasn't expecting third party measurement or anything like that.

To me a successful demo would have been one that actually measures input and output power in a direct and simple manner. I would have given Rossi the benefit of the doubt that he's not pulling some hidden magic tricks (and waited for a replication/third party verification for later)

Heck, I would just be happy with a paper by Gullstrom where he describes an experiment where he is actually measuring input power.

Quote from Gerard McEk

Here is how Mats thinks about the event:

https://animpossibleinvention.…cat-qx-demo-in-stockholm/

I believe it is an excellent summary!

Quote

Mats:

At the demo, as seen in the video recording, Rossi was adjusting something inside the control system just before making the dummy measurements. Obviously, someone could wonder if he was changing the system in order to obtain a desired measured value.

His own answer was that he was opening an air intake after two hours of operation since the active cooling was not operating when the system was turned off.

Clearly this comes down to a question of trust, and personally, discussing this detail with Rossi for some time, I have come to the conclusion that his explanation is reasonable and trustworthy.

However, as I stated above, if I were an investor considering to invest in this technology, I would require further private tests being made with accurate measurements made by third-party experts, specifically regarding the electrical input power, making such tests in a way that these experts would consider to be relevant.

Obviously Mats knows he has to be diplomatic with Rossi, and that if he were to show doubt to what Rossi says, it would be the end of their collaboration.

Mats' comment:

Quote

Didn’t notice this. Not good.

I discussed the dummy tests with Rossi two months before the demo. Shortly before the demo Rossi only wanted to do the short circuit test, not the 800 ohm, since the waveform would be altered in a way that would reveal sensible information, he said. I told him that in that case it was meaningless to do the test at all. He came back a few days later and said he would do it.

Whatever adjustment he did before the dummy test, legitimate or not, it’s a serious problem. The input measurement was already weak as it was. Now I suppose the only conclusive test would be to repeat the measurements when he has a developed control system that doesn’t need cooling so you can measure COP of the whole system.

Also I wonder if the box is open when Fabiani reaches with his left hand or if he is reaching under the box (@27s)

The demo did not show the characteristics of the QX. We have a device with unknown COP, because input power was not measured.

This comment from ECW (Leonard Weinstein) reflects my thoughts. No need to divulge IP to measure input power.

Quote

The test protocol was very poor. The fan could have been powered with a separate power cord and avoid the fan power issue. Then the input power to the power supply box measured with a power meter. The fact that the power supply got hot indicates it had a significant added power use which has to be made small before any real progress can be claimed. The OUTPUT from the power supply could be measured with an rms power meter, so the true COP could be found without giving up any secrets. The COP has to be corrected for the 1 Ohm resistor power use.

I'm looking forward to a demo by Cipolla or other.

BTW, Rossi could heat water with the control system as well and then we'd have COP=2.

Quote from Cipolla

at the minute 50 the trick is out.

As can be seen from the oscilloscope the current waveform is triangular monopole. This can be achieved by feeding a monopole triangular waveform with a resistance (as Mats supposes) or by feeding an inductor with a one-way square wave.

If using an inductor the resistance can be close to zero, but the dissipation can be very high by exploiting leaks for parasitic current or magnetic hysteresis. It would be seen immediately by measuring the tension on the heads of the reactor, but Rossi did not allow it. The voltage in fact is high (about 200V to deliver 50W) and Rossi 50 minutes to Mats: "No, Mats, do not touch!" and makes him move away. Poor Mats, he was about to find the trick.

The principle is that used in common kitchen induction cookers.

Rossi does not (cunningly) measure the power absorbed by the network saying that there are 60W used by cooling. But 60 W is little more than the expected power from Rossi output. In fact, a switching circuit has a very high efficiency and that power supply is generating a square wave at 100 kHz which is used to generate (via inductor) a variable magnetic field inside the "heat exchanger" generating heat for parasitic current and / or magnetic peristalsis.

Display More

Maybe someone would be able to replicate Rossi's results using this kind of setup?

Looks like we'll have to wait at least til tomorrow for the video publication to be sorted out...

Quote

Andrea Rossi
November 24, 2017 at 12:22 PM

Xavier Pitz:

I have finished now to talk with the attendants in the aftermath of the event. The QX worked well as usual, even if I reduced the power down to the 30% od its possibiliteis, to have zero risk.

The demo is online, you can find it on Ecat.com, Ecatworld, Youtube and others. The integral text of the theoretical presentation of Carl Oscar Gullstrom will be published the next week on the Journal Of Nuclear Physics.

Warm Regards,

A.R.

Display More