The following post has been submitted by Gerard McEk
Thanks for sharing this, Gerard. I have noticed that AR has used Wh/h in place of plain W for many years now. He thinks it is more accurate.
“Wh/h” does not mean the same as “W”, even if it might look so at first sight. “Wh”, as a unit of energy, is the result of an integration (power over time), not just a multiplication. Since the both “h”s do not stand for the same thing, you cannot simply cancel them out. With varying power, there are in principal infinite configurations that would result in the same amount of energy over a given period of time. So “Wh/h”, as used by Rossi, means “energy per time unit”, not “power”.
Energy per time is power. It’d be easier to digest if he just said 1 MW over 24 hours or something like that if he wants to convey a specific time period.
The Wh/h construct is non-standard, old school, and confuses just about everybody.
„Energy per time is power.“
Not exactly, but you could interpret it as an equivalent of „average power“. What Rossi actually means is perhaps “continuous power”, which is a special case of what I mentioned above. A given amount of n Wh/h would also guarantee that the delivered power is never lower than n Watts (it could be temporarily higher, though).
To avoid confusions, one could use kJ/h or MJ/h instead.
„A given amount of n Wh/h also guarantees that the delivered power is never lower than n Watts.”
Sorry, I meant: “that the power reaches at least n Watts continously”.
Andreas: No. Wh/h is nothing other than the AVERAGE power over an hour. Watts can be smaller or larger within that hour, but the average value is Wh/h. This convention is needed when the value of W can vary within the hour.
Yes, I did say that above. What I meant with the second sentence (admittedly, even my correction was not precise enough – it was after midnight here, sorry) is that a rating of, let’s say, 1 kWh/h implies (among others) that the device must be able to reach at least 1 kW. Of course, the delivered power could be temporarily lower, but then the maximum would have to be higher than 1 kW.
Yes it is exactly. Quantity of energy per period of time is the exact definition of the power physical quantity.
Whether you choose to average it, take the maximum during that period, indicate a period of time over which the quoted value is valid… those are all tangential to the fact that energy per time is power. kW hours per hour (kWh/h) is identical to kW except for what the extra h’s might convey — and what they convey is never actually crystal clear to anybody reading it — and maybe not even to the guy writing it. If he means to highlight the quantity of energy actually output then he’d be better off writing X kJ over Y hours for an average of Z kJ per hour.
Certainly, there are different uses of “power” in physics and engineering. Nonetheless, “Wh/h” is not the same as “W” if you refer to the actual power of a device. To give an example: Switch the power of your device every second between 0.5 and 1.5 W. It will then generate 1 Wh/h, while it virtually never produces 1 W.
No I really don’t know, but if I had to guess it might be having to do with aligning of the particals as I have it these need to move back and forth easly , and also regulates the amount of energy that flows through one ,that operates the control box and another for the reactor because of different needs.
After a night of sleeping about it, I think it is more a philosophical issue.
Gerard, Rossi explained to me that what they mean with a ‘charge neutral current’ is that it’s carried by equal amounts of positively and negatively charged particles (i.e. not by only electrons or protons).
And regarding watts: I interpret Wh/h as an average over time whereas W refers to the instantaneous value, or to a constant value.
I understood that ‘çharge neutral current’ implies charged particle flow in both directions, but I have no idea what it means for the electrical properties of the plasma.
Regarding the latter: Well it’s just the issue that in the example with the Stefan Boltzmann Law the output result is in W and in the example with the heat exchanger Wh/h. It may confuse people.
The charge neutral current means that the cations and anions are neutralized at the electrodes. Technically, plasmma’s conductivity is “the same” as in the electrolytes, where anions and cations (“neutralized”) are conducting the current between the electrodes.
does the following help?
August 8, 2017 at 12:42 PM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Your measurement system to define the wattage in the circuit of the E-Cat QX, made by a power source plus 2 resistances is correct:
In pag. 5 is drawn exactly the schematic of your ciscuit. If the E-Cat has no resistance, in becomes just a circuit with one resistance.
Well, again one of these posts supporting this strange method of E-Cat power measurement.
Sure, this is correct if the resistance of the E-Cat is really zero. But he would have to somehow measure the resistance of the E-Cat in real time during the test. If he should somehow manage to do that, great, otherwise the whole presentation is unfortunately just useless.
Your form of argumentation suggests that you are a skeptical troll . . . . looking to point at the unknown with the thought that if an unknown exists then NOTHING may be trusted. IMHO, that is pathological . . . it does not represent the true nature of reality.
I’m a scientist, I know that it is important to do correct measurements. More than once have I fooled myself with measurements that were not done correctly, until I found the problem. Every scientist knows that. If your method is erroneous, your measurements are just useless. That is simply a fact.
Measure twice, cut once
Hhhmmmm . . . you assert you are a scientist.
Yet, before you is an invention that stretches know physics to the point where cold fusion apparently is triggered . . . and Rossi has presented a method that keeps a proprietary shield around his invention and at the same time provides sufficient information for others to recognize that what is missing doesn’t prevent an acknowledgement of the import of the observations: COP measurements out of bounds for chemical reactions.
It is your prerogative to doubt. I just don’t agree with your argument.
Does he provide sufficient information to demonstrate COP out of bounds? Maybe he will, it just doesn’t seem so right now.
You seem to be discounting some history, especially the 3rd Party E-Cat test report known as the Lugano Report.
Perhaps you are discounting the history of the Lugano report? The Lugano report claimed a COP of 3.2-3.7 was measured. However, the instrument used to measure the reactor temperature was not properly calibrated. Thomas Clarke estimated the temperature error was at least 100C, which resulted in his estimate of the true COP to be more like 1.1-1.3. The temperature measurement error was confirmed in experiments by MFMP.
I remember the fevered discussions when the Lugano Report came out. The biggest problem that the naysayers could never resolve without pulling out something like the “Rossi is a Fraud” card is the totality of the results. The results were skeptically evaluated from all sides. But, the totality of the results stood and still stand.
Some things stood out for me: from the impact of never going to SSM upon the potential COP to the impossible results of transmutation of the isotopes/elements. It left the scientists with the key observation, which I paraphrase from memory, that “we don’t know what is happening but something is happening through a mechanism that is beyond what is currently known to be possible.”
As with Mylan, it is your prerogative to doubt. I just don’t agree with your argument.
Mylan and Dr. Mike are correct. Identifying possible errors has nothing to do with “naysaying” – it is an indispensable part of the scientific method. The Lugano thermometry was most likely wrong. If you do not agree, please provide arguments. Statements like “they did not use SSM” or “there have been isotopic shifts” may have their rationale, but they are not connected to the measurement issue, and therefore not suitable as counterarguments.
I appreciate your argument and recognize the importance of the iterative process of refining the measurement process.
However, You and I disagree on the importance of the bigger picture as a backdrop for evaluation. You argue they are not suitable as counterarguments. I however hang on their importance for not losing sight of the presence of the inexplicable in the results, which I suggest is the philosophical and experiential root for the creation of the scientific method of investigation.
I may not be clear in my point, but this is the root of my disagreement with your argument.
I did not mean that arguments like the mentioned ones are generally irrelevant. Their relevance just depends on the question you put. If you ask, for example, “Is there a chance that Rossi’s technology works (to a certain extent)”, they are of course to be considered. But if a particular measurement has been made correctly or not does not depend on the ‘bigger picture’. It is just a technical question that can be answered by technical means. (Nonetheless, to be completely sure about the Lugano case one would have to examine the original reactor shell – therefore the term “most likely” above.)
I think it a good idea to revisit how this side-thread started with a posting by Mylan:
“Well, again one of these posts supporting this strange method of E-Cat power measurement.
Sure, this is correct if the resistance of the E-Cat is really zero. But he would have to somehow measure the resistance of the E-Cat in real time during the test. If he should somehow manage to do that, great, otherwise the whole presentation is unfortunately just useless.”
Mylan’s apparent frustration over Rossi’s statement that the resistance of E-Cat module is so low as to be near zero and Rossi’s organization of the measurements to protect proprietary information about the E-Cat module seems to point Mylan towards throwing up their hands and ending with the glib opinion that ” . . . the whole presentation is unfortunately just useless.” Understandably, Mylan wants technical perfection in the October demonstration. But we all must work with the big-picture understanding that Rossi is not working within an academic setting, but rather within a commercial lab where keeping material secrets is a normal justifiable goal.
I prefer the evenhanded style shown in the last paragraph of the Lugano report. It accepts the big-picture despite the strong desire to dig deeper with improved experiments.
“In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding. Moreover, the E-Cat results are too conspicuous not to be followed up in detail. In addition, if proven sustainable in further tests the E-Cat invention has a large potential to become an important energy source. Further investigations are required to guide the interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our work will continue in that direction.”
“estimate of the true COP to be more like 1.1-1.3”
Sooo, The dog-bone reactor that Darden and his people built, (Not Rossi) actually had a COP>1.
The test that Rossi’s detractors don’t really like to discuss is the Ferrari, Italy tests. They had COP like 3.6-5.2 and that was with black body paint verified with a manufacturers black body patch emplaced on the reactors. Their best argument was that he was feeding power through the ground cable. That fell apart when it was revealed that the ground wasn’t even connected. Then the wild ideas arose that he was heating it with a laser from afar and wireless energy transfer.
You don’t have to measure the resistance you can derive it.
V = I x (R1+R2)
He can measure the overall voltage the current is know.
R1 = V/I – R2
If you can’t measure the resistance and you are sure that it is very low, than my method is the only way out. If you doubt AR’s words, than that is a total different issue.
Thanks for the very thoughtful post and the time it took you to put it together. I have a few random comments:
1. I agree with your conclusion that the 1 ohm resistor is an integral part of the device. If multiple devices are to be run in parallel by a single controller, the 1 ohm resistor would be essential to eliminate a problem of “current hogging”.
2. In his blog Rossi has stated the output of the controller is proprietary. Why would this output be proprietary if it was just a “power source.supplying direct current”? My guess is that Gullstrom took Rossi’s word that this was true and never actually checked the output, or he was told that no more could be said about the power source in the paper other than it was supplying direct current. It is obviously a true statement that the controller does supply a dc current from the dc voltage measurement across the 1 ohm resistor. However, this does not mean that the controller is not supplying additional input power to the device (as you mentioned perhaps GHz pulses).
3. Although I applaud you for trying to construct a solution that fits the paper and Rossi’s assumed “honest” answers, it seems fairly obvious that the paper is quite incomplete from a scientific standpoint and that Rossi’s answers often have been purposely misleading or just don’t answer the question. Until more information is obtained, the power source/controller needs to be modeled as a black box that has circuitry to supply some type of pulse to turn on the device, to supply 0.1A of dc current while the device is on, and perhaps to supply some other high frequency signal to keep the device operating.
Thanks, Dr. Mike. In reaction on 1.: I believe it is likely that multiple QX’s are put in series using all the same one ohm resistor. That makes control easy. The assumption that the plasma reacts as a current source will help to maintain the current running.
I do hope AR will fully support the engineers validating the claims.
IIMO it probably takes a high initial voltage to turn on the QX’s. This might be difficult if the devices are connected in series. One thing we should find out from the demonstration is how multiple devices are connected to be run from one controller. I also hope Rossi makes some attempt to answer the questions that have been raised when he runs the “demonstration”. So far his record of answering critical questions on his blog has not been very good.
Just pure logic:
1. The Quark QX has a zero electrical resistance. Systems like that are known, one example is a Xenon lamp, when a flash is generated. The currents are of the order of 2000A and they are coming from discharges of capacitors. Therefore: Quark QX uses ionized plasma. The plasma is consistent with Rossi’s statement about ions going both ways. The voltage should be probably more than 200V. Therefore, the control system increases the voltage of the DC supply. This can be done by “chopping” the DC current.
2. The systems in electrical resonance can have high currents and high voltages (a capacitor coupled with a coil). Therefore, the power supply just “supports” the already resonating circuit, maintaining its resonance. The frequency of “chopping” is very close to the resonating currents and adjusting the frequency of chopping controls the Quark QX. While some people argue that chopped DC would not be called a DC by Rossi, I think that it is part of Rossi’s plan to slightly misguide the followers and the competitors.
3. High currents were described as leading to transmutations (Balutov, lightnings converting oxygen into nitrogen etc). Therefore, Quark QX resonates large currents through nearly zero resistance of ionized vapors of Nickel, Hydrogen and Lithium in the atmosphere of hydrogen gas.
4. I think that the question of controller is solved. Sorry Andrea, I want this to be implemented as soon as possible by those who have capacity to test such a relatively simple system. The LC parameters need to be calculated and the “chopper” needs to be designed (chopper designs are available on the internet).
PRO PUBLICO BONO.
5. I might be wrong, but the idea presented above fulfils all the “conflicting and contradicting” pieces of information.
That’s the spirit Ted. I like your suggestions. I am not sure the plasma it would be super conductive but a very low resistance is also suitable and would imply near to zero power consumption.
Gerard, I agree that there is a high conductivity, we do not need to claim superconductivity. The high conductivity of plasma is well known in the Xenon stroboscopic lamps (the flash happens when the Xenon gas is ionized; the conductivity of Xenon plasma is so low, that one can claim essentially “near zero resistivity”. At least the schematic that I have suggested seems to fulfill numerous characteristics of Quark QX discussed within ecat world. The key word here is the word RESONANCE. I just WISH that somebody would proceed with the schematic that I have proposed. Maybe MFMP could do some prototyping?
I hope that we will hear of an E-cat QX replication soon.
ANYBODY, MFMP or individuals, PLEASE test the resonance concept, if you have equipment. We want this effect to work for the benefit of as many many people as possible. So far, my schematic is the only “constructive” proposal for independent experiments with “generic Quarks-QX”. The idea can be converted into a “public project”, like the MFMP projects.
It appears that the electrical power generated by Quark QX exceeds the electrical power supplied as the “DC” current. This implies that the plasma amplifies the resonating current. This would be a new, “not known so far” physical effect (in addition to the LENR effect). No other explanation fits the claims made by Rossi.
Websearch ‘negative differential resistance fireball’
A negative resistance requires an active component in the electrical circuit able to act as a source of energy. In plasma systems, this component could be a self-consistent double layer existing at the border of a fireball. The double layer works as a nonlinear element of circuit able to convert thermal energy into electrical energy, creating all the conditions necessary for the appearance of the S-type NDR in the current-voltage characteristic of a plasma conductor.
The light and RF emissions oscillate at the same frequency as the electric current.
Shortly: According to last comments on JoNP, E-Cat QX has no resistance, i.e. E-Cat QX is supraconductive. Somebody wrote this few weeks back.
Superconductivity? Unlikely. Superconductivity at 1000C would be a sensation of its own. High conductivity would be sufficient. But that would need to be demonstrated.
Ultra dense hydrogen is known to show a Meissner effect at high T. A key question nobody asked Rossi is the evolution of the pressure inside the reactor. I bet there is a direct relation between the input current and internal pressure.
I tend to interpret „no resistance“ as „very low resistance“, although I would not exclude superconductivity completely. (There have been extensive discussions about this issue.)
The point is that if AR makes in a public demonstration he should feel obliged to verify this claim. I have no idea why connecting an additional meter could be such a big problem.
Searching for the Secrets of the E-Cat QX.
The search seems to be unnecessary as Mr. Rossi claims to know the answer. (if genuine)
Below some reasons for disclosure.
1, Morally insanity to keep it secret
2, Scientifically insanity to keep it secret.
3, Efficiently insanity to keep it secret.
4, Productively insanity to keep it secret.
5, Universally beneficially insanity to keep it secret.
6, etc. etc.
would anybody like to fill in the only possible reason left for somebody to keep such a discovery secret?
Answer: Profit and fame. Rossi is dealing with the real world. He is not a Don Quixote. But, his inventions will eventually have a wonderful,positive impact upon mankind. Certainly worth waiting for, and it will surpass moral and ethical condemnations of the impatient.
If everybody reacts as you do George, Rossi’s secrets may never be revealed. At least I have tried. I hope we all here on ECW can lift the curtain and uncover his secrets.
I find your specific criticisms of the Roosi paper to be completely fair. It is a simple fact that the manner in which Rossi has chosen to present the data might well have impressed the majority of laymen, but anyone who has any electronics background is sure to be frustrated by the missing data.
There simply is NO way to take the numbers as being a complete picture, and that means opening the door to another round of endless speculation as to WHAT might be going on simply to have those numbers be true.
I am not saying they are NOT true, I am saying that the whole thing has more holes than my socks!
In my humble opinion, Rossi should present the control system AND the QX hardware as one integrated system, and simply limit the published data to total SYSTEM power, vs output heat, and let the math take it from there. Showing that bleeping 1 ohm resistor, and giving a bunch of cryptic answers as to the QX resistance just caused greater confusion.
Even if the control circuit is a hog, and really better suited to operate most efficiently when driving 100 QX’s, as an integrated system (a black box – no peeking inside) the WHOLE would only need to unquestionably produce a COP of about three to be a total success. It is not important AT THIS TIME to show off any COP greater than that.
The perfect demo of the POTENTIAL would simply involve a third party supplied WELL REGULATED and TRIPLY METERED power supply, along with a control load to run in parallel with the QX system, with matched input power, watt for watt. Run the tandem experiment long enough to rule out internal hidden power source, like 5 days, and compare your calorimetry between the active reactor system and the control heater unit. If Rossi’s reactor creates 3 times the output heat then we can say he demonstrated a COP that proves it operates over unity.
But exposing ANY of the voltage/Current/Power levels WITHIN his circuitry basically demands that it be analysed, and , well… here we are.
And NO!!! I am not bashing or second guessing him! I would think you would have all figured out I am a bit of a Rossi Fan by now. I am only lamenting the fact that he may intend well, but he keeps creating these issues by being PARTIALLY honest. He does not need to be. Do not give ANY electrical data internal to the system. Just stick with TOTAL SYSTEM POWER and TOTAL OUTPUT POWER.
This is all that those who are asking for PROOF of function require. Those who want METHOD of function will have to wait until the patents clear and the legal rights are completely secure.
I for one am beginning to think Rossi has no real understanding or insight into the underlying physics. That is not an attack. The Chinese were making gunpowder for CENTURIES before anyone understood the chemistry! But I must confess that I am not impressed with the “Strong Force at great distance” theory. I would rank that as one of the least probable of all the theories I have seen. It is an interesting proposition, from a theoretical standpoint, but I see nothing from any of the experiments to lead one to believe the cause is THAT FAR outside of known physics. The Piantelli theory seems to explain everything quite nicely, and without the need for any major textbook revisions. And the predictable results OF that proposed interaction are coincidentally IDENTICAL to the full scope of the credible experimental observations made so far.
As Engineer quotes, “KISS”
But I find your essay perfectly reasonable and your frustrations fully justified. I, on the other hand, am not frustrated at all, because I really LIKE having nice “bugger-of-a-problem” things to ponder while at work painting those white stripes down the center of the highway (yes, you are all welcome), and I am happy to wait for hard info at a later date. But MY comfort with this particular unknown does not invalidate YOUR observations. Perhaps my lack of concern stems from my high confidence that Rossi’s tech is valid, and that Piantelli was right about the physics, and that it is really just a matter of playing a waiting game for the facts to come out and for everyone to come around! Horribly egotistical of me, but once the mind resolves an issue, even subconsciously, we are simply a lot less frantic about needing the proof. So yeah, I am just coasting along and waiting for everybody else to catch up. I am equally likely to have egg on my face when everything I think is right turns out to be wrong, but there is nothing I can do! My mind has made ITSELF up, and I can’t seem to convince it to “keep an open mind” and stay objective. The pieces of THIS jigsaw puzzle fit together to form a whimsical picture of a nano-scale replica of CERN. All the rest is self explanatory, and requires only a high school level physics background to understand. But Rossi’s papers themselves require a PHD in cryptography to reconcile!
Any way, NICE ESSAY!
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis.
There certainly could no claims of measurements being proprietary with a measurement of total system input power and total output power to determine a system COP. I would prefer to see this measurement of COP with an estimation of how much it might be improved with a more efficient controller rather than see a calculation of device COP using a device input power that has not been properly measured.
Thanks Chapman. I agree that Piantelli’s theory should be analyzed carefully in practice and in theory by the scientific community.
As I also said in my assay I would welcome at least also a power measurement at the mains or battery side of the control unit for a credible test. I would further recommend a second power measurement direct to the E-cat QX(-s) to determine the real COP of the reactor. See also the ‘2 COPs of the E-cat’ -thread. I think also the control system is an integral part of the E-cat. Having both figures provides the ‘development potential’ of the whole system.
Just an example. If one looks to the hot fusion guys: the system would be impossible if the coils weren’t cooled near to absolute zero Kelvin to make them super conductive. Very near to those coils is the plasma at 10.000.000 C or higher if fusion takes place. The energy that cooling allone takes is major and you can’t do without. So that should be included for the overall COP. If you want a working electricity producing plant then the COP of Total energy in to Heat out must be 10 at least. That gives you total electrical power in to total electrical power out of COP(e)=3
Gerard, on this occasion I find it very difficult to follow your logic.
If Rossi had been rewarded well by society seven years ago for his discovery, then surely it would be further advanced with thousands more working with the known method to replicate.
How many hours has he personally lost on pointless court cases and trying himself to organize production and reward for himself that in a more sane system would be handled by others, leaving him completely free for his Research.
For the sake of humanity I somewhat agree with you George, however I think it is also fair to Rossi that he is awarded for all his hard work and money he has put in it. ‘Humanity’ is not only a social community. There are millions of wolves-, sharks- and greedy-like people that would take Rossi’s invention without scruple and make money of it over the back of the social and caring part of ‘humanity’ if he wouldn’t do it. So I would award Rossi for it.
Now why do I try to uncover the QX secrets? It’s my technical curiosity that drives me and further I believe that Andrea is playing games with us, making riddles. Who is the most bright one in the world? You or I? And I like so solve riddles.
Gerard, thank you and I agree that everybody achieving for society should be rewarded pro-rota for their efforts from a road-sweeper up.
Our system as I point out continually is logically, scientifically and self-evidently incompetent.
This for the reasons I give are unarguable and yet I continuously get reply’s from people who are saying in effect the same as Cold Fusion is impossible and it is stupid to suggest a better way.
You may enjoy solving riddles, I would suggest a worthwhile riddle is to work out how to improve the system as I suggest to help those in need.
It is to mind-boggling to have people who I am sure consider themselves intelligent to some degree, disagreeing with the pure logic I write regarding a seven year delay being displayed in front of our eyes and not realising that arguing against that logic is not intelligent.
I don’t find it strange that Rossi hides details of the circuit for as long as possible to protect his trade secrets.
I find the thought of positive and negative particles flowing past each other very strange indeed.
An electric potential of several hundred volts is applied between the two electrodes. A small fraction of the population of atoms within the cell is initially ionized through random processes, such as thermal collisions between atoms or by gamma rays. The positive ions are driven towards the cathode by the electric potential, and the electrons are driven towards the anode by the same potential. The initial population of ions and electrons collides with other atoms, exciting or ionizing them. As long as the potential is maintained, a population of ions and electrons remains.
THAT was a beautifully crafted description!!!
And it explained the idea faster than the WIKI article!
Much as I would like to, I cannot claim the credit. It was a straight copy/paste from the article.
Further down :
However, sputtering is not desirable when glow discharge is used for lighting, because it shortens the life of the lamp. For example, neon signs have hollow cathodes designed to minimize sputtering, and contain charcoal to remove continuously remove undesired ions and atoms.
Now where have I seen a hollow electrode with a black (graphite?) core?
In electrochemistry this type of conductivity is known for over 100 years… it is called conductivity of electrolytes…. plasma operates on the same principles. There is nothing strange here.
The nuclear reaction (LENR) is quite likely to happen in the plasma state. There were some papers and experiments about “dusty plasma” and LENR within that “dusty plasma”. Rossi’s plasma may behave in a similar way as the “dusty plasma”.
OK George, stop it with the fake names.
We all know it’s you, whatever name you post under…
Ha, sorry Chapman, I only use my name and those that support my view or abuse have nothing to do with me.
I sit and read the responses that are a direct mirror into the thinking of our society, very educational and in many cases a very sad reflection of humanity.
I think AR’s intention is mainly to be precise about the delivered energy. A counterexample are BrLP’s notorious announcements about “millions of watts” that their reactors allegedly produced. I think meanwhile they are claiming continuous power, but originally they didn’t – so their “millions of watts” were pretty meaningless. (However, they might have been impressed some illiterate investors.)
Do you see the two handles at the end of the QX?
What happens if you pull on them and open the contacts to the QX?
I assume the QX is in SSM mode and producing 20W.
If it is a real current source the voltage would rise very high. You will see a spark then, because the voltage would rise to whatever is needed to maintain the current. I do not expect it is a perfect current source, though. Based on remarks in the past, I expect ‘mild current source behaviour’: a voltage rise, but not over a 1000 V I expect, but that’s just a feeling.
If you look to the circuitry, relatively thick wires (for 0.1 A) are being used. That could indicate that a low inductance circuitry is needed. The dV/dt of this current source can be very high. An circuit induction of a few uH could already cause instability. The 1 ohm resistor is needed to damp the electrical energy of the plasma. It’s value is probably chosen to to allow for some SSM.
Thanks for that. I am sure you are right that the current source must be capable of surviving an open circuit and a short circuit. The mystery to my mind is what stabilises the SSM mode in the QX, if the contacts are open. In the E-cat, there was a view that connecting the row of units inside the ‘big frankies’ allowed some to run in SSM but there is no suggestion of multiple QX units being needed for SSM AFAIK.
I can only speculate, as I have been doing all the time. We know the QX is capable of generating a max of 10% electricity. That would mean that the resistance can have a max value of 200 ohm. The max voltage generated is 20 V then, assuming the current remains at 0.1 A. I assume that frequency increases with a higher circuit resistance. The ‘high’ voltage will shorten the SSM time. It could well be that the current drops quickly in SSM (remember, the voltage over the reactor reverses in SSM). I believe that the resistor has a crucial role in making SSM stable, together with the reactor current/voltage source properties. The current should not be much more than 0.1 A for the QX.
Well, Rossi resolved a big question as far as I’m concerned.
August 10, 2017 at 4:21 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Which is the internal resistance of the Ecat QX?
August 10, 2017 at 2:33 PM
The operating temperature of Quark-QX (Rossi said 2600 deg. C) is close to the boiling point of Nickel. The electrodes of Ni would be completely melted. This is in conflict with the statement that suggests that the electrodes of Ni are positioned in parallel within the Quark-QX “long dimension”. M.P. of Ni is 1455 deg. C, the boiling point is 2730 deg. C. While the boiling point can be controlled by pressure, the melting point is not likely to change within the practical range of Quark-QX pressures.
The only thing I can think of is that the temperature of the relatively thick electrodes is ‘cooled away’ using the conduction of the wires. Putting the QX in a liquid medium would be perfect for this. That would also imply that another solution is needed if AR wants to operate the E-cat QX at e.g. 1400 deg. C for a long time.
The volume of energy is more important then the temperature. A 2500`C temperature at 20 watts of energy has little impact on a 3 pound block of steel. With the QX, the temperature is in the plasma and the volume of energy is not enough to have serious impact on the electrode at the perimeter as long as that energy is drawn away.
I agree. Even at high temperatures you can efficiently conduct the heat away through the electrode wires. It is similar to a (halogen) light bulb.
I am pretty sure that Rossi only operates the QX on a short duty cycle (possibly 10%) when there is no heat exchanger in place. This allows sufficient time for the electrode temperatures to drop back to some unknown safe point. This cooling is of course assited by the fact that such a small device has relatively little intrinsic heat capacity, quick to heat up, fairly quick to cool down.
Maybe that due to relatively thick electrodes sufficient heat can be extracted at temperatures around 1500 C (outside). I believe that the cycle is determined by the SSM under operating conditions. The plasma continues. When the QX is off, some high voltage or field strength will be required to start it.
LENR in a QX
1: The plasma fireball :
Fig 1(f) Fireball in hydrogen in a dipole magnetic field
2: The hypothesis :
LENR in the QX occurs in the positively charged core of a spherical fireball located in front of the anode.
The fireball self-assembles.
The LENR is a two-stage process: firstly the production of neutrons by electron absorption in a proton and secondly a neutron absorption in a heavy positive ion/ neutral atom (all isotopes of Lithium, Aluminium and Nickel are candidates).
The thermal neutron absorption cross-sections of these elements/isotopes[2:] are relevant. The dominating absorption cross-section in barns is for Li6 ( Li6 (7.52) 936±6 cf U235 (0.714) 690±5 ) and the equation is :
Li6 + n → Li7* → He4 + H3 + 4.78 MeV
Lithium-7 has a very low neutron cross-section (0.045 barns).
The potential drop from anode to cathode of the QX is almost all across the double layer (DL) surrounding the fireball.
The DL accelerates electrons into the fireball and accelerates positively charge ions out.
The fireball can oscillate at high frequency, resulting in oscillating electric current, light and RF emissions.
The negative differential resistance(NDR)[1:] of a hydrogen filled gas discharge tube is located across the DL.
The anode DC current(0.1A) drains thermalized electrons from the fireball.
3: References :
3.1: Websearch ‘negative differential resistance fireball’
A negative resistance requires an active component in the electrical circuit able to act as a source of energy. In plasma systems, this component could be a selfconsistent double layer existing at the border of a fireball. The double layer works as a nonlinear element of circuit able to convert thermal energy into electrical energy, creating all the conditions necessary for the appearance of the S-type NDR in the current-voltage characteristic of a plasma conductor.
Table of Thermal Neutron Cross Sections of the Isotopes (all outcomes)
H HI (~100) (327 ± 2) . 10-3
Li6 (7.52) 936±6
B10 (19.8) 3,840± II
Nis8 (67.76) 4A±0.3
Ni60 (26.16) 1 2.6 ±0.2
Ni6l (1.25) 2.0± 1.0
Ni62 (3.36) 15±2 I
CU63 (69.1) 4.5±0.1
Cu65 (30.9) 2.2±0.2
U235 (0.714) 690±S 2
U 238 (99.3) 2.71±0.02
Ordered by thermal neutron reaction cross-section
B10 (19.8) 3,840± II
Li6 (7.52) 936±6
U235 (0.714) 690±S 2
Ni62 (3.36) 15±2 I
CU63 (69.1) 4.5±0.1
Ni58 (67.76) 4.4 ±0.3
U 238 (99.3) 2.71±0.02
Ni60 (26.16) 2.6 ±0.2
Cu65 (30.9) 2.2±0.2
Ni61 (1.25) 2.0 ± 1.0
HI (~100) 0.327 ± 2
Interesting synthesis GADAB! Would low temp LENR also create some kind if ‘fireball’?
Would the properties of a fireball be related to surface plasmon polaritrons?
I do not think that LENR on its own would start the QX because the bias current has to be applied from outside and possibly a lot more heat is needed to heat things up to normal operation. What does seem possible is that you can remove the bias current(0.1A) and a QX in SSM mode will carry on running. A UCLA(University of California) reference says the same thing for a fireball.
The UCLA reference also says that to stop the fireball (or a QX) needs the voltage over the discharge tube to be shorted. In other words, open circuiting the QX is not the same thing as short circuiting the QX because the fireball is an electrical power source in its own right.
On of the amazing things about the fireball is that it self-assembles and its oscillating features just start as resonances in the right conditions. As far as I can see, heat from LENR inside the fireball would sustain the oscillating fireball, rather than using electricity applied from external electrodes. You will have to ask Axil about polaritrons (I am only a nuclear engineer!).
August 16, 2017 at 6:53 AM
Dear Mr Rossi,
Can you explain what you mean by “5 sigma” in the context of the QX? As I recall it means different things if you are talking about reliability (less than one defect in about 4000 units) or the chance of a result occurring by accident (<1 in 3.5million). Are you cycling a QX on and off 3.5 million times? Is that what is needed to claim 5 sigma? Thanks.
August 16, 2017 at 7:38 AM
We are cycling QX with different cycles a number of time that is due to reach Sigma 5 without issues that need more than several hours to be fixed and without exceeding a due frequency. Everytime we find a problem, we do not just fix it, but we make modifications to prevent it to to return. I calculated the parameters that make me sure before accepting the risk to send E-Cats out of home to enjoy their freedom of life. Since they will be dolphins among sharks, they must be genetically modified to be able to kill the sharks that will try to kill them.
August 19, 2017 at 7:48 AM
I will not give any information related to all the charges of all the reactors of the 1 MW plant after the test. I deem this information confidential.
August 19, 2017 at 6:27 AM
August 19, 2017 at 7:45 AM
Today very important test.
August 19, 2017 at 3:32 PM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
The measurements during the demo will be made by you or by third parties?
August 19, 2017 at 5:36 PM
By third party experts.
August 19, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Will it be possible after the demo of October for people to debate with you in live streaming?
August 19, 2017 at 3:01 PM
I think so, yes.
August 19, 2017 at 10:01 AM
What can you tell us about the very important test you are doing today?
August 19, 2017 at 1:41 PM
We are testing a longer ssm with a new configuration.
August 22, 2017 at 11:36 AM
Was the problem with the E-Cat or the control system?
August 22, 2017 at 12:50 PM
With the control system, that also caused troubles to the E-Cat.
August 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM
Did you resolve the problem with the Ecat QX?
August 22, 2017 at 10:43 AM
Yes, in this very moment we fixed it.
August 25, 2017 at 1:18 PM
End of October.
August 25, 2017 at 5:00 AM
August 25, 2017 at 7:35 AM
Yesterday we made a very important step forward with the control system, which means toward the industrialization. Nevertheless, we still are in an R&D stage, on our way toward Sigma 5.