Posts by Robert Horst

Quote from THHuxleynew

My point above is that the reactor casing temperature (and therefore the gauze temperature) can be controlled by altering the airflow, as well as altering the heater power

Yes, the Mizuno experiment can be analyzed in the same way as semiconductor packaging and cooling. This is usually expressed by the thermal resistance (in degC per Watt) from junction to case (theta-jc) and from junction to ambient (theta-ja). Theta-ja = theta-jc + theta-ca.

Theta-ja depends on the thermal pad, heatsink, and airflow across the heatsink. (In most cases, cooling by conduction and radiation are so low in comparison that they can be neglected.) The main design choices are in the heatsink design (area exposed to the airflow) and the airflow provided by the fan. The same junction temperature can be set by adjusting the junction power (say by changing clock rates) or by changing the cooling system to increase or decrease cooling.

The THH suggestion to reduce airflow and heater power to keep case temperature constant seems like an excellent experiment once the original experiment has been replicated. As he suggests, it would show a range of COPs for the same experiment.

You could connect the thermocouple to ground via a capacitor. That would bypass high frequency noise to ground, but block DC currents.

When I was working with high voltage electronics, I used USB isolators to make sure that any arcing to the USB-connected electronics would not damage the computer or scope. You might measure temperature through a DAC with floating power supply, and connect it to the logging computer through a USB isolator. That would prevent grounding the fuel through the thermocouple.

Here is a link to the pdf for this electron screening patent:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/10264661.pdf

Both US and PCT (international) patent applications are normally published 18 months after filing. In both cases a published application includes header information from the patent office including application number, filing date, inventor names, etc. This document has none of that. The header makes it look like an internal document from the law firm preparing the application, although there is no indication that it is confidential. It is unusual for a document like this to be publicly available.

He did not go into detail, but I imagine the biggest losses are in producing and delivering the Q-pulses. The power supply would have to generate AC-DC (maybe 80% efficient), then deliver a high current pulse which would have big I-squared R losses in the cable and PC board. They also have termination resistors to make the pulses as square as possible, and those resistors would dissipate power.

At the MIT colloquium, Tanzella said that the latest results show a COP of 2.6. He is working on adding mass-flow calorimetry as an additional verification of the COP. He hoped to have those results before the meeting, but something broke and he could not present them yet.

At the end of the talk I asked him what the COP would be without subtracting the losses from the electronics. In other words, what was the heat output relative to the wall plug power? His answer was that the COP would be about half. That would make it just over unity in the earlier experiments, and a COP of around 1.3 now. He did not break down where those inefficiencies are or what could be done to improve them.

Quote from Alan Smith

It means the fees have not been paid. I'm not sure how much grace (if any) is allowed, but basically the IP is free and clear.

The IP is free and clear, but this is not a patent that was abandoned because fees were not paid. This is a patent application that was abandoned, likely because it became clear to the inventor that it would never be issued as a patent.

From the public PAIR site, I looked up the application and found the following which I have edited to remove the uninteresting parts:

Date Transaction Description

04-25-2013 Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action

04-22-2013 Aband. for Failure to Respond to O. A.

10-12-2012 Mail Non-Final Rejection

09-28-2012 Interview Summary - Examiner Initiated

10-05-2012 Non-Final Rejection

08-13-2010 Applicant response received

07-12-2010 Referred for DOE Property Rights review by L&R LARS

07-12-2010 Referred by L&R for Third-Level Security Review.

07-10-2010 Referred to Level 2 (LARS) by OIPE CSR

07-09-2010 IFW Scan & PACR Auto Security Review

07-09-2010 Initial Exam Team nn

He responded to one rejection, had an interview with the examiner, then gave up when he got the next rejection. The file history shows six patents that were cited as prior art including this one with James Patterson as sole inventor:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7279088B2/en?oq=7279088

Here is a link to a 2015 Holmlid paper with more information about the type of pulsed laser he used for these experiments:

http://www.hydrobetatron.org/f…a-decay-chain-process.pdf

"A Nd:YAG laser with pulse energy of < 400 mJ pulses at 1064 nm and 10 Hz repetition was used."

Quote from [email protected]

It's been posted twice. Look upthread.

Here's another couple of additional links.

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…f/ICCF-14/123_ICCF-14.pdf

Swartz M., Excess Power Gain using High Impedance and Codepositional LANR DevicesMonitored by Calorimetry, Heat Flow, and Paired Stirling Engines, Proc. ICCF14 1, (2008), p 123; Ed D.J. Nagel and M.E.Melich, ISBN: 978-0-578-06694-3, 123, (2010); http://www.iscmns.org/iccf14/ProcICCF14a.pdf

Display More

(This quote is from one of several posts above buried in this Rossi thread. These posts are really about the Mitchell Swartz Phusor devices connected to Stirling engines.)

Last summer at ICCF-21, I was sitting with Dr. Swartz at lunch and asked him about his COP and the possibility of closing the loop (deriving input power from the excess heat output). My notes of that conversation say that he was then reaching a COP as high as 1000 and would try again soon to close the loop. With a COP that high, it should be easy to close the loop with either a Stirling engine generator or Peltier devices.

He was probably talking about the latest tests of his NANOR devices. See:

Swartz M. R., Hagelstein P.I., Demonstration of Energy Gain from a Preloaded ZrO2–PdD Nanostructured CF/LANR Quantum Electronic Device at MIT, J. Cond.Matter Nucl. Sci. 13, (2014), 516

http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol13.pdf

It will be interesting to hear what he has to say at the upcoming LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT.

Magnetic energy?

Potential energy can be associated with a field, like a ball on top of a hill in a gravitational field.

Or you can have potential energy associated with a magnetic field, like a ferrous object at a distance from a magnet.

The force from the field does work to accelerate the object and change the potential energy into kinetic energy.

But the field itself cannot be measured in energy units.

Quote from RobertBryant

In LENR-(low energy nuclear reaction)- the low energy is really a misnomer-

since these magnetic fluxes can be high energy as 24 MEV

Something is wrong here. Magnetic flux is measured in webers or volt-seconds, not in energy units like electron volts.

This is like saying that you weigh 2 meters.

Here are links to the pdf versions of the Google patent applications.

The first two appear to have the same figures and specifications.

When a patent is examined, the USPTO may determine that the claims are directed to more than one invention and issue a restriction requirement to make the inventor elect only a subset of the claims to be examined initially. The non-elected claims can be included in later filings of divisional or continuation applications that retain the same priority date.

In this case it looks like they initially filed two sets of claims to avoid a later restriction requirement and start the examination of both sets of claims more quickly.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20190043624.pdf

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20190045617.pdf

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20190043632.pdf

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I am not an electrical engineer, but would it not be fairly easy to generate the 360 W or whatever it is that is needed via some kind of simple electrical device (ex Peltier effect based)? Then feed back that power to the device to run it? If it keeps running, problem solved. The fact that Rossi does not even try this seems to indicate it does not work. With an output power supposedly 60 times greater than input, that should be a piece of cake. Maybe the electrical people can chime in how easy this would be. Since "he" is a company of the highest echelons, I would think "he" aka "they" have the ability to do this.

It could be done pretty easily with thermoelectric generators. Here is a company that makes some that are in the range of 7-12% efficient depending on delta-T.

https://tecteg.com/

400 W would require around 20 of these 21W modules at a total cost of around $1.5K.

https://tecteg.com/product/teg1-pb-12611-6-0/

And here is a nice paper that shows how to construct 500W and 1 KW thermoelectric generators using multiple modules.

https://pangea.stanford.edu/ER…Astandard/SGW/2014/Li.pdf

At 7% efficiency, a COP of about 15 is required to self-sustain.

Quote from magicsound

Great idea Robert, let's do it.

I have an Agilent 6553 power supply that might work. Can you supply a suitable discharge tube?

I will check with my friends and Ebay to see if I can find a discharge tube to try. I may also have a big supply that could work.

This is much more interesting if you try to think of a magic act that could produce a similar output from similar inputs.

First, get a 400W power supply that can be set to limit at 20V and 19A.

Connect the power supply output directly to the gas discharge tube.

Wire a resistor in series with a piezo barbeque grill lighter (with a big red button) and also connect that across the discharge tube.

Connect the scope across the resistor.

Here is a link that shows how the discharge tube would operate:

http://g3ynh.info/disch_tube/intro.html

and this is a figure from this link

Before hitting the button, the 20V is too low to cause current to flow. Hit the button and the high voltage from the piezo discharges, driving the high voltage through the resistor to the tube. As the voltage rises, it follows the top curve through the Townsend discharge, Plateau, Glow discharge and into the Arc discharge region.

At that point, the voltage drops as the current rises. The power supply (which does not interfere with the high voltage due to a diode driving the output) does nothing until the voltage drops below 20V. When that happens due to the arcing, the supply starts driving current to maintain the arc. The current rises to 19A which just about right to keep it at 20V with all 380W being delivered to the arc (just like an arc welder). The graph above shows points around the 20V/19A point. Watch the fireworks through welder glasses.

But what about the scope? Just set it to AC coupled, then all you see is random noise around 1/4 V max with about equal positive and negative pulses as shown in the video.

Screen grabs of the whiteboard explanation of COP.

The key questions is not whether you call it foam or bubbles, but whether it is or is not 100% liquid. The paper assumes that the entire volume below the observed level is liquid, and the enthalpy calculation is based on vaporizing that volume. It is pretty clear that this assumption is wrong. The amount of the error can be debated, but this source of error certainly should not have been entirely ignored in the paper.

Great work on the clacker. It seems to be fast enough to generate repeatable experiments while clearing momentary shorts. The piezo actuator I suggested might be used to increase the repetition rate, but that could be a future enhancement if it seems worthwhile.

Regarding your earlier question:

Quote from magicsound

First test results with the cell empty of liquid. With the inductor steel core removed, peak-to-peak voltage of 538 volts is seen, with resonant ringing at 5.8 MHz. With the core inserted, the peak voltage is slightly lower and the ringing frequency is higher, at 6.4 MHz and is more quickly damped. This is counter-intuitive, as higher inductance should result in lower frequency.

The oscillation frequency depends on both L and C. If modeled as lumped L and C , F = 1(2*pi*sqrt(LC). When you add a core, it increases both L and C, which should decrease the frequency as you say. The way I think of it, is that when the clacker opens, you have an energized un-terminated transmission line where the propagation delay determines the transmission time and hence the resonant frequency. You can also think of it as an antenna that resonates at at frequency of about 6 MHz.

At 5.8 MHz, a quarter wave antenna would be 40.3 ft (484 in).

At 6.4 MHz, a quarter wave antenna would be 36.6 ft (439 in).

The electrical length would include the leads to the anode/cathode, the wire in the inductor, the wire to the supply, and the internal wiring inside the supply. Could any of that have changed between tests? Could some windings have shorted out when the core was inserted? I doubt that the core had a very large effect on the inductance without a closed magnetic path and something else must have changed in the other direction.

If you do not have an LCR meter, you could measure the inductance easily with your scope. Temporarily put a resistor across the inductor (say 100 ohms). Then run the clacker outside of the electrolyte and record the voltage waveform across the parallel LR. The clacker shorts to charge the inductor, then opens and the inductor is discharged through the resistor. Measure the transition time for one time constant (63% drop in voltage). Then L = t/R. If you measure inductance with and without the core, it would help to understand the mystery. That would also help us build an accurate SPICE model of the experiment. While you are at it, measure L with a steel C-clamp clamped between the ends of the bolt to provide a low reluctance magnetic path. That should result in a big increase in inductance.

(Another way to measure the inductance is to use your signal generator to drive a square wave to the inductor through its internal 50 ohm source impedance.)

Here is a modified version of the piezo bender that avoids the need to immerse the bender in the electrolyte. That way we can use uninsulated benders which are easier to find and cheaper.