He measures the current and the supply voltage. I suspect he does not put a voltmeter across the QX as he provided a high voltage pulse every 8 seconds or so. Hence "unwilling to measure directly like any normal person." is not true.
You just failed to understand it.
If he measures the supply voltage then we might be ok, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that he did measure that voltage. Can you point me out to where I can find that info?
THH actually 800 ohms if for an added resistance.
It appears that Rossi is not delivering power to the QX (R*i^2=0*i^2=0), but to some random resistances in the circuit.
So the reactor now has a resistance of 800 ohms ? Seems more reasonable but I thought it was supposed to have no resistance?
From ECW: "There were measurements taken using two different resistors across the QuarkX, a 0 Ohm resistor, and an 800 Ohm resistor. ECWreporter did not have the details of the calculations taken, but they will be in the video."
So looks like the 800 ohm comes from an added resistor.
From Mats Lewan's presentation
So the reactor now has a resistance of 800 ohms ? Seems more reasonable but I thought it was supposed to have no resistance?
Confirmed in Sweden by the ECW correspondent.
Never seen this kind of humor from Rossi. The initial part is a bit forced, but I like the part about picnics on the floor.
Quotethe attendants will have to bring up their cups from home and put a name on them otherwise they will be stolen ( the cups, not the attendants ) and if they will want to wash the cups, they will receive the bills for the consumption of the water ( so much precious, after the global warming stuff ); if they think will get hungry, not even think they will find food, albeit we will allow them to put on the floor clean sheets to picnic on them the food from home.
The one reason I would think it could be in Sweden is that 2.5 hours seems short to have people arrive, run the demo, and put the recording online.
9:30 in Sweden gives an extra 6 hours to upload, do some light editing, set up the page and double check everything before noon Miami time.
Another reason is the rumor that Mats Lewan is organizing.
I really doubt that Rossi would take the the risk of flying one of his prized σ5Qx to Sweden.
I haven't checked again but the last update I saw was the meeting started at 9:30 not 10:00
Not a crucial error, but I find your repetitive negative comments about Rossi aggravating and uncalled for in a thread that is supposed to be news and information.
If people have to arrive at 930 it is fair to assume that the demo will start around 10. Note that oldguy used a question mark in his post as well.
Edit: "Looks like we'll have the demo around 10am and the stream around noon." <- to clarify, those are my words and not Rossi's
Barty,
I think the DPS will start in the morning, and the video put up sometime *past* 12 noon Miami time. Rossisaid at first, that the video starts at noon, but changed it to sometime in the afternoon.
I'm still guessing Sweden.
Noon streaming does seem like too close to the arrival hour if all times indicated are Miami time.
I am still betting on Miami with video available later than planned.
Back on topic:
Looks like we'll have the demo around 10am and the stream around noon.
Don't forget your ID!
Andrea Rossi
November 14, 2017 at 12:52 PM
TO ALL THE PERSONS THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED TO ATTEND TO THE DEMO OF NOVEMBER 24TH:
PLEASE BRING WITH YOU AN ID, BECAUSE THE SECURITY WILL CHECK THE NAMES OF THE LIST TO ALLOW TO ENTER.
PLEASE BE IN THE PLACE AT 9.30 A.M.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
I appreciate you seeing my point, but I must disagree that it is "my world." This is Rossi's world and I'm just peering into it and making sense of it for you.
The wire analogy is simply one way to think of the circuit given Rossi's statement that the reactor has an effective internal resistance of zero. Would it be better for us if Rossi measured the voltage across the reactor and the resistor, and included values for the resistance of the reactor as well as the resistor itself? Yes. Did he do that for us? No. Why? He explained why.
Fair enough.
My intuition is that Rossi's device could have R~0 when operating. Which means that input power ~0 (R*I^2).
However, it must have received some energy at some point. So either R is dependent on temperature (seems likely), or the start up necessitates high Amps.
In any case, Rossi must account for energy for the whole experiment. It's possible that his COP calculation is correct and that R(reactor)=0, but that's just a measure of instant COP.
Who cares what power the resistance in the circuit receives. If what Rossi says is true, the instant COP is actually much higher as the device is receiving ~0 input power.
Perhaps his device is in SSM and the reactor is not receiving any power, but then what's the point of measuring V^2/R on some random resistance. Seems totally off topic.
Assume the reactor is a wire. Then measure power of the system. V^2/R.
OK I think I understand where you're coming from now.
But in your world, we're just powering the rest of the system. And we're not sending any energy to the reactor (since R=0).
How do we even turn on the reactor if no energy ever goes to it? Why is it even in the circuit?
Yes you can. It is in fact a conservative approximation of the input power (assuming Rossi's assertion about the cell itself having effectively a zero resistance is true). Think of it this way: if the cell has effectively zero resistance when in operation, then you can consider it as a good conductor (such as a wire) as an approximation. How would you measure the power in that case? By doing as Rossi has done. So why didn't Rossi just take the voltage reading across both the resistor and the cell and use both resistances in the calculation? Because he wanted to keep the specific values related to the cell a trade secret. Is this ideal for the peanut gallery? No. Is it what happened and does it make sense in that context? Yes.
If Rossi had measured the voltage across both the resistance and Quarkx, then it would be an upper bound on input power to the Quarkx (i.e. conservative):
(V(R)+V(Q))^2/R > (V(R)+V(Q))^2/(R+R(quarkx))
However, Rossi only measured voltage across the resistance, and:
V(R)^2/R<(V(R)+V(Q))^2/R
We can't conclude that what he measured is greater or smaller than actual input power. He's just measuring the wrong stuff.
Or show me your math that proves your assertion.
I for one cannot wait for the Demo of Pure Science
Given the current unresolved disagreement, I think we need some experts on dogs and poneys to weigh in on the crux of the matter.
Bocijin,
I may have missed it, but I did not see Miami confirmed for the demo? I am guessing Sweden.
At some point Rossi said 4PM Miami time.
Axil used logic to determine it would be in Miami.
I don't think the demo would occur at 10PM in Sweden.
How does that work then?
I'm not sure if I understand your question.
But if Rossi claims that a certain voltage is ~0 , he can certainly demonstrate it.
And I'm sure you can figure out better than me whether Rossi is providing an adequate measurement of input power.
My electrical engineering is rusty, but I don't think the Rossi/Gullstrom paper had a proper setup. It only worked on the assumption that V=0 across the reactor. Do you disagree?
What flaws?
If you had been following the subject you would know the calorimetry does not involve steam.
What is wrong with measuring the voltage across a known resistor? Apparently the reactor has close to zero resistance. Measuring the power going into the controller would be a good idea, but that's not what you said.
If you had read the post you replied to, you would see that I know it won't involve steam - that's a good thing.
Nothing wrong with measuring V across the resistor. But that's not enough to measure input power.
The reactor having zero resistance is not "apparent" to me. It will be apparent if Rossi plugs a voltmeter across it.
