Could this be the Ecat SuperX?
Axil might like the spark plugs.
Someone said the scope was set to 100uS/div which gives something around 83kHz.
A close match is 83.03kHz being modulated by 9.5kHz
83.03kHz * ABS(9.5kHz)
However more likely a resistive heater between the bolts with an LED.
It looks like the QX reactor is simply 2 bolts pushed into the ends of an unsealed glass tube, you can see the thread. What colour arc do you get in plain old air )))
Almost perfect replication of the scope image. Assuming 100uS/Div on the scope, that gives 9.5kHz and 83.03kHz.
I think this is close. f1 * ABS(f2) with f1 being about 8.6666 times f2.
At least 7 investors, well Rossi attracted the fish, but did he get a bite.
Plainly not a superwave, its just the result of the product of 2 sine waves, with the lower frequency being full wave rectified (absolute value).
Its extremely easy for the magic PSU to determine if an 800 ohm resistor is connected and alter the output accordingly. This really is a magic show in the classical sense. Anyone on Rossi's team made magician hardware in a past life.
I believe it is, it came from Ecatworld. Its looks an odd modulation. Its balanced but using an absolute value modulating signal that results in something like suppressed carrier but without carrier inversion. The carrier frequency is something like 4.33 times the modulation. Perhaps its just the scopes test signal, but I have similar Tekronix in my lab and they don't have that.
@Shane, I think that's Rossi's Dell Inspiron laptop )))
The reactors resistance had 2 values that were over printed. The 1 ohm resistor is fixed and doesn't change.
Thanks Zeus46.
So it seems to me we have a cooled power supply that can provide 60W and a measured output from the QX of 50W??
@Para,
What's the setup, you have a 10mm gap for an arc or a short circuit simulating the Quarkx??
That's a bit hard, Rossi has had some success. His white board full of equations has nailed down the electrical power going into a 1R brown resistor.
Interesting that the calculated power out when divided by the input current equals aprox the US 2-phase mains supply voltage.
25.6W / 0.12A = 213.33V
1777.7 is consistent with Gullstrom's paper which had EO = 20, EI = 0.01, therefore COP = 2000
Yes, totally agree THHuxley. I also fell into that rather naive trap of assuming the single time constant. I was surprised it was questioned in the paper when a little thought and searching gave the real and in retrospect obvious reason for the observed change in temperature. Having said that, there is still an issue with slight misalignment in the graph between temperature and power applied.
For me though the most striking observation is that the temperature curve is exactly what you would expect from a heated lump of metal, there is no indication of a abnormal increase indicating the start of some sort of reaction. That would suggest to me there is either no reaction with mismeasurement or a reaction that's proportional in a linear way to temperature. The later would suggest the possibility of a continuous fuel reaction even at room temperature albeit at a very low level.
