Posts by Alan Smith

    If Rossi can get his QuarkX to work in a plasma, does fuel preparation have any impact on the LENR reaction? R. Mills in his SunCell does not do any fuel prep in that reactor...just get a dirty plasma going and the plasma takes care of itself. Are you'll still chasing your tails here?

    This is not a plasma reactor. Not all nails need hitting with the same kind of hammer. You can cook eggs straight from the shell, but peas need podding first.

    Eric Walker

    The device exists alright. For a very brief period there was a video circulating of 'first ignition'. I have (before you ask) not seen it myself, but others I trust have. I think btw that you are looking at around a 10% duty cycle which is why it doesn't melt.

    ETA. There are several - indeed many- scenarios that appear to be possible here. 1. The quark does not exist, Gullstrom never saw it, and Rossi just made up some numbers and told him what to write. 2. The Quark does exist, and Gullstrom , who got to be a PhD student at Upsalla without having a clue about how to use a multimeter or indeed any other measuring device, visited and wrote what he was told.

    They will both seem entirely plausible to some. I like a third variant, where Gullstrom saw a Quark running, did his best to measure things with the equipment to hand and walked away amazed.


    Let us assume there was an ENORMOUS error in measuring the heat output. Since the wrongly measured COP was 22,000, even if we assume a measurement error of three orders of magnitude (103), we are still looking at a COP of 22. And at that level the output would only be a couple of watts, and Gullstrom would have been saying 'is it getting warm yet?'


    I think that the pioneering interest shown by IH in LENR research is indicative of the fact that the control and monetisation of any disruptive technology (disruptive in terms of impinging upon the established pattern of cash-flow) will be swift, aggressive, and comprehensive.

    Philosophy is not my usual bedtime reading, but I think this pre-print paper by Finnur Dellsén looks at an aspect of what might be called 'contentious science' in an illuminating way. 'Where there is no harmony, there should be trust'. The author is a postdoctoral fellow at University College Dublin, where he is working on this programme...

    The paper.

    When Expert Disagreement Supports the Consensus : Finnur Dellsén

    This is a preprint of an article whose final and definitive form will be published in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy is available online at:


    It is often suggested that disagreement among scientific experts is a reason not to trust those experts, even about matters on which they are in agreement. In direct opposition to this view, I argue here that the very fact that there is disagreement among experts on a given issue provides a positive reason for non-experts to trust that the experts really are justified in their attitudes towards consensus theories. I show how this line of thought can be spelled out in three distinct frameworks for non-deductive reasoning, viz. Bayesian ConfirmationTheory, Inference to the Best Explanation, and Inferential Robustness Analysis.…6FjGYYnBpV3ZXY2xQSnc/view

    Can someone confirm, that the current QuarkX is still the one we have been told about a year ago with a blurry blue picture? A 30mm long stick, 1mm diameter, packed and covered with unknown high tech materials, delivering thrust, electricity, light and enormous heat at the same time? We will probably know by the time when the indipendent demonstration and test will happen...

    Lets be clear about the thrust thing. Boeing and Airbus are interested in LENR for the same reason. Reheat on high-bypass fan jets. That is where the thrust idea comes from, the Q-X is not self-propelling.

    Maybe so Bob. Perhaps the sapphire surface is occluded with condensed metal vapour? But as operation is intermittent perhaps plasma temperature - when plasma present - was the object of interest rather than the surface temperature of the tube ? Plasmas can of cource come close to BB's emissivity depending on density and so on. Probably an average temperature figure would have been a better idea. But- in matters of thermography- I am happy to be advised by almost anybody!

    From their measurements, they estimate a temperature of the device surface at 2636°K or 2363°C. Alumina would melt at 2072°C, so either the tube is not alumina, or the tube surface temperature is wrong. It is likely that the tube is alumina and the tube surface temperature is wrong. As I mentioned, the tube can be much cooler than the plasma (for example the much cooler glass temperature of a neon sign), particularly if the tube is transparent. Alumina is translucent at visible and near infrared wavelengths - it has a high degree of transparency because its crystallites are randomly oriented sapphire. So it has scattering, but a high degree of transparency. This means that the diameter for the Boltzmann calculation would have to be some kind of average plasma discharge diameter inside the tube because it is not the tube surface that is at that temperature and radiating at the 2363°C Boltzmann spectrum - it is the inner plasma.

    Hi Bob.

    In fact the tubes are Sapphire - which is ok up to 2000C+ (2332K) , and operation is intermittent, so the plasma temperature might be too high for comfort, but the tube and the electrode temperatures fall within the bounds of possibility. Intermittence is even alluded to in the paper.

    Nucleon polarizability and long range strong force from σI=2 meson exchange potential
    Carl-Oscar Gullström, Andrea Rossi. 9/march/2017

    This appears to be a Quark - related experiment.....

    Address of the site: 7861 NW 46th St., Doral, Florida, 33139 USA
    Participants to the experiment: Carl-Oscar Gullström, Dr Andrea Rossi
    Description of the apparatus
    The circuit of the apparatus is made by a power source to supply direct
    current, a load made a 1 Ohm resistance, a reactor containing two nickel rods
    with LiAlH4 separated by 1.5 cm of space.
    During the test a direct current was switched on and off. When the current
    was switched on a plasma was seen flowing between the two nickel rods. The
    current was running through the plasma but the plasma was found to be charge
    neutral from a Van Deer Graaf test. This implies that the plasma has an
    equal amount of positive ions flying in the direction of the current and negative
    ions(electrons) in the opposite direction.
    Input: 0.105 V of direct current over a 1 Ohm resistance.
    Energy output: The wavelength of the radiations out of the reactor has been
    measured by a spectrometer ( Stellar Net spectrometer 350-1150 nm ) and was
    integrated with the value of 1100 nm ( 1.1 microns ).
    The temperature of the surface of the reactor ( a perfect black body ) has
    been calculated with Wien’s equation: 2900/λ (micron) = 2900/1.1 = 2636 K
    By Boltzman Equation the effect is: W = σ × ǫ × T
    4 × A
    A = 1.0 cm2
    ǫ = 0.9
    By substitution: W = 5, 67 × 1012 × 0.9 × 4.8 × 1013 = 244.9 etc, etc..

    Ordinary activated carbon can be produced from many different carbon sources as well. I guess the question would have been better posed as: "does the activation here roughly cause the same transformations occurring during standard activated carbon manufacturing?"

    No- ordinary activated charcoal - as used for filtration.odour trapping etc. - doesn't do the hydrogen trick as supplied. But it will do it if electrolysed. So there is something distinctly different about CC.

    It is confusing, and you are not the first victim. The CC is made using ordinary granulated carbon. It can be crushed coal, coconut shell carbon, crushed wood charcoal or carbon black powder derived from burning natural gas ( gas-black). All these items have been used. We 'activate' these materials - turn then into catalytic carbon - using the simple electrolytic process we have described elswhere and detailed in Howard Phillip's patents..

    That's it.

    Has electrolytic activation of the carbon grains already been attempted by placing them close to one of the electrodes instead of homogeneously arranged in the water tank?

    Well, some grains are close, and some are far away, the tanks are looseley filled with carbon grains, there is little totally free space. This arrangement might in theory (some theories;)) change the grains individual environments a lot, but in practice there is a steady voltage gradient right down the tank. You can see this gradient effect in what fans call 'HHO' cells, where only the electrodes at each end of the stack are connected directly, and the others in between show a 'floating voltage'. It may be that those carbon grains nearer the electrodes would show more catalytic activity, but in practice we have never separated them.

    This comment is from one of our research group on reading the paper you pointed out to me...some of it may be unclear - the referecnce to HDO for example, but you can see it got people thinking.

    "A very interesting paper.

    Pd is a whisker away from Pb and as such this may have a very direct interest in relation to CC-LENR.

    If Pb doped Carbon becomes ultra-absorbent… there is just so much to think about here.

    Refilling of tanks, the reduction of H2O and the possible concomitant concentration of HDO.

    Why does heat seem to originate at the base of the Anodes… could this possibly be a point of major Pb doped Carbon absorption?

    Is it simply Protium that is being absorbed?

    Gosh… it touches on so many aspects of our thoughts and work."