Posts by Paradigmnoia

    Nonsense or not, a functional 4 wheel wagon needs the invention of independent bearings at some point. Try and turn a twin solid axle wagon around. And if the wheels are not equal in diameter even a two wheel cart will try and turn itself around or drag one wheel... Whether or not more is obviously better, more adds complications and new problems that might not be obvious at first glance.


    The point of the MFMP is to come up with a replicable experiment that can be done anywhere, by anyone with a reasonable level of skill. (Perhaps even an experiment that you would be willing to try). Adding complexity might not be effective in that regard.

    I have also to add that I looked into Thomas' comments above in more detail. I found a chart of "withstand" ratings for copper wire. Actual testing has shown that a nick-free copper wire of 14 Ga will handle up to 795 A for 30 cycles (1/2 second) before melting ( 1080 C). How this translates to a higher resistance wire with a higher melting point would need some working out. The duty cycle would need to be very low if this were to be continued over an extended period of time, and the time to cool the wire between On periods would need to be considered. Actually doing this with off-the-shelf equipment is another story... I asked this of the Compact Fusion manufacturer, to see if this could be reasonably attempted in zero cross mode, or if it would trip an over current safety setting. I will report back on their answer, if they respond. They might think that I'm some sort of nut case and ignore me...

    This is indeed a complex subject, and these sometimes rough arguments are excellent for paring down possibilities.
    These discussions did lead me to an idea, which may or may not work, but I'll give it a shot and see if it makes sense. The information available might just be too sloppy and calculated values might be too ... wrong.


    Using the resistance figures calculated for each of the power examples given in the report, the coefficient of change of resistance over the temperature range might give a clue to the actual coil wire type, or the true temperature range. Maybe both, if done carefully.

    MY, I get your point better now.
    I would guess that once the one wire system is figured out to a reasonable level of reliability, then scaling up to more wires and improving the apparatus is the obvious step. I personally would move up to 2, then 4, then maybe 10 if each prior version proved to be scaling up well.


    Whether scaling this experiment fits the mandate of the MFMP, and is cost effective, is of course another problem. With unlimited funds I am sure they could test the possibilities and improve the calorimetry to the point of satisfying even your high standards with ease. Getting that high level of funding probably depends on lesser successes with the budget presently available.

    Rent a Compact Fusion controller and try it. Please explain your math to the supplier when returning the smoking remains.


    Edit: Also don't forget the critical radius for insulation when considering alumina coatings as a heat sink. For a 14 Ga wire, the difference in thickness between improving heat transfer and decreasing heat transfer isn't much. Not to mention that the wire isn't embedded anyways.

    Now, channeling Harry Potter, magically shrink the three 160 foot leads to a space of 30 cm X 2 cm X 2 cm, so that there are no wires touching each other, and all the wire stays the same size. You may also magically increase the melting point of copper to that of inconel. It won't make too much difference.
    That is the Lugano device with no thermal insulation or core. Just the heater part.

    Take a 500 foot roll of typical 14 Ga house wire (about 1.25 Ohms) pull out the three conductors from the loom and connect them so they make a triangle. Connect each corner to a 6 Ga cable a couple of m long, and plug those into a 380 V industrial 3 phase supply, one lead to each phase.


    Flip the breaker back on.


    How long could you expect this circuit to last? What do you suppose the Compact Fusion box would think of this in zero cross mode, at 5, 10, 25% power delivery? Cut the 500 feet down to about 160 feet and try again.

    I have had both the Installers and Operators manuals for over a year.


    With zero cross, no special waveforms are possible. Either phase angle or zero cross is available as an option and is factory set. Both are not an option.
    So massive current spikes are the result if zero cross mode is used. Enough that at best a fuse will blow before anything else happens.


    Removing all fuses, etc.: At 230 V (One phase to neutral, lowest V possible with one full wave), 1.23 A, 179 A will attempt to flow and over 39000 W of instantaneous power could be developed. Poof! Lowering the resistance just makes it worse.


    Using 230 V, at 20 ohms, the device should work pretty well, and probably the minimum resistance is around 10 ohms for a zero cross set up (around 5300 W instantaneous) for a 220 V set up. (Which does not jive with any other calculations based on the report). Bumping the volts higher gets nasty high peak currents again, even with the higher resistance.

    One problem with the clamp saturation idea is that the instantaneous power peaks would become huge. At 1.23 Ohms, 100 A (minimum value for possible clamp saturation), it would require 123 V, but then 12300 W are developed. The thing could barely be "on" at all (very low duty cycle) without melting something (hopefully a fuse). The controller basically would be always be preventing anything near full conduction or voltage. A small increase in voltage or conduction period would indeed result in huge increases in power output.
    It would be useful to know how big the breaker on the supply panel was.


    Just for the heck of it, if the peaks were 6 times higher than the maximum rating for the clamps (I.E.: 600 A), then 738 V would be required (at 1.23 Ohms), and a mere 442800 W would be developed. Even for an instant, that is unlikely to actually occur without blobs of liquid metal forming somewhere in the circuit.

    A few quick notes:
    There is supposedly a skylight in the room in Lugano. We were told that it was opened to let heat out of the room.


    The purple digital camera colour caused by IR can be easily seen by taking a picture of a TV remote or similar where the LEDs are visible. Active IR LEDs will appear violet in the photo, but unchanged from off by eye.


    Do you mean 4 mm OD for the core?

    I have almost solved the wire diameter/braid/resistance problem in order to arrive at the specified resistance per foot, as specified in the patent application, and arrive at the mathematically calculated resistance per phase/coil using inconel with the required number of wraps around the depicted core tube. The problem remaining is that this seems to lead to a rather cold-running heater coil system (good luck getting close to 750 C at 930 W). Possibly not even very effective at 3000 W....


    @Antoine10FF, I may have some inconel emissivity data stashed away in my data files. I'll post what I have once I scrounge it up.

    Quote

    Your argument here is full of assumptions and incorrect deduction.


    I fail to see how, if the current was measured wrong, then any calculations using that wrong "data" can be right. Especially resistance, since we have no voltage data, except for the mains. Using only some Joule heating figures (calculated by the report authors) and one current measurement (possibly in a different electrical configuration), a somewhat wobbly construction of electrical values for various things have been obtained. Cut the legs off by invalidating current (especially when it is derived by de-construction of other data, not actually reported as measurements for the active run) and the entire construction collapses. Then discussion of resistance is futile.

    Thomas, if the current measurements are at least close to reality, then the "complex conspiracy theory" (yes, exaggerated by me, but partially justified by the use of the term "cover-up"), does not seem to follow, and I do not understand what H-G B was getting at. That is why I hoped that H-G B would have answered, rather than someone else.


    I added the "overestimate" to cover the bases. I am not sure how quickly an inductive clamp can de-saturate, once saturated, and how that might affect subsequent readings/pulses. If 1000 A clamps were used, perhaps then the low amp readings would be inaccurate. That would be worth testing by someone with access to a PCE-830.

    So now Mr. Clarke is a mind reader?
    Or maybe I am a fortune teller, since I guessed that Clarke would answer my last post instead of H-G B.


    So the reasoning sequence is: the clamps were measuring a current out of range, so the current is over or underestimated, so therefore all the electrical calculations based on the report are wrong. So we have, then, no idea of the actual power consumption. Therefore a COP of 1 based on any electrical theory is a waste of calculation effort. We don't even know what went in because current is wrong, any resistance calculated from those currents are therefore wrong. So the magic resistor theory is a waste of time. Any threefold error is a figment of our imaginations and math based on bad data. Any apparent consistent mathematical trends are purely coincidental.

    H-G B:(distilled version)

    Quote

    You may remember that... the resistors were made from a very advanced... secret material. Various data... show... that Rossi... lie about the resistors. this... cover-up did nothing to help the issue with overloading the current probes. ...we now know the probes were overloaded with a factor more than six.



    I don't understand how your complicated conspiracy theory is supposed to work.