On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Good grief. The resistors are coils, presumably helical solenoids with > the > > axis parallel to the reactor cylinder. The magnetic field is near zero > > outside a solenoid, except at the ends. > > The magnetic field outside a solenoid is smaller than inside but not > "zero". > Which is why I said *near* zero. It's orders of magnitude smaller. > The flux lines have to be closed, and thus there is flux outside, and > there is > no meaningful lower limit for macroscopic magnetic fields. > Obviously, but all the lines close over huge space compared to the confined space inside the solenoid (at the ends). Surely you're not arguing that fields weaker than that of the earth's are going to have an influence here. > > And the large thermal mass of the whole isn't in the path from the resistor > coils to the perimeter of the cylinder where the reactions might be taking > place. > > The thermal mass of the resistors themselves will largely smooth out the power variation, so your claim of 10 J variation on a 10 ms time scale is nonsense. And only a fraction of that reaches the cylinder. And they claim the reaction is in the Ni-H. You can claim it's going on in mustache if you want, but it has no bearing on reality. > In any case, sufficiently precise instrumentation will allow the slow and > stable > 100 Hz signal to be picked up anywhere. You have a lot of faith in precise instrumentation, or you have not done a simple order of magnitude estimate. You can get some idea of the rate of temperature change by looking at the temperature on the outside when the power is cycled in the March run. Now the outside has more thermal mass than the cylinder, but it will also absorb more of the heat from the resistors because of geometry and because it's at a lower temperature, so within an order of magnitude, it's probably a wash. According to the temperature plots in the paper, when the resistors do turn off completely, the temperature of the outside drops by about 25K in 4 minutes. That means that for a complete turn off the temperature in the cylinder might change by 25/(60*4*100) = 1 mK in 10 ms. That's for a complete turn-off. But we know from considerations of visual ripple in tungsten bulbs, that the power will decrease by maybe 1% during a 100 Hz cycle because of the resistor's thermal mass. So, now we're down to .01 mK variation. Please let me know of a device that will detect that on a 500K background. > > Nuclei are capable of reacting to low-frequency, low-intensity magnetic > fields > as shown in nuclear magnetic resonance. > > NMR is done *inside* the solenoid (usually superconducting) with fields in the range of teslas. And while nuclei react to the fields, it is a strictly electromagnetic and not nuclear reaction, in the sense that nuclear forces are not involved. > The question is again the same. We don't know the sensitivity of the LENR > to > low-frequency thermal signals, so this might be irrelevant or this might be > part of the secret. > > But in any case, if Rossi needs a specific waveform, and by waveform I'm > talking > at the sub-second timescale, then it makes perfect sense from an electrical > engineering point of view to first obtain a clean DC source and then use > that to > generate whatever waveform is needed. > > And obtaining clean, high-powered DC with a thermally robust circuit is > much > easier from three-phased power than single-phased power. > > And this is only one valid reason for using triphase. > > You mean speculative reason. But how does that fit with the fact that the steam ecats used single phase, and they used in some cases more than 1kW input, and claimed in some cases, 10 times higher output power than this last run, with a COP of more than 10. And how does it fit with Rossi's claim that he can run the ecats using gas to provide the external power? And how does that fit with the claims of 4 hours of self-sustained operation without any magic waveform, or in this case 4 minutes? I don't think anyone seriously believes he needed, or even benefitted by the use of 3-phase power as a legitimate power source for a legitimate ecat. By far the most plausible reason is to make it easier to pull a fast one. I'm sure it's not essential for all possible trickery, and if he ever switches back to single-phase, he may have something else up his sleeve, as he did with the steam in the previous incarnation. Change is as good as proof to true believers it seems. > It seems that in your mind anything Rossi does can be construed as being > part of > a trick or ploy. > > > They measured the power to the ecat on the lines going in to the ecat > using > > clamp on meters in the December run, and in the dummy run in March. So > it's > > ac at the line frequency; the meter has a narrow frequency range. > > That's not clear to me from the report. Here is what it says: > > > The instrument was connected directly to the E-Cat HT cables by means of > three > > clamp ammeters, and three probes for voltage measurement. > > Which cables are those? "Directly to the ecat HT" seems pretty unambiguous. > If we read the part about the dummy test, we read: > > > The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box, > but > > without the ON/OFF cycle of the resistor coils. Thus, the power applied > to the > > dummy was continuous. > In the final part of the test, the COMBINED POWER to the dummy + control > box > > was around 910-920 W. > > Right, but the next sentence says: "Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in single-phase directly on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on average, about 810 W. " That's how they determined the consumption of the box itself. > Therefore they placed their clamps before the supply. > > They placed the clamps before the supply in the March run, and in the dummy run, except for the one measurement to determine the box's consumption. > > Resistor coil power consumption was measured by placing the instrument in > > single-phase DIRECTLY on the coil input cables, and was found to be, on > > average, about 810 W. From this one derives that the power consumption > of the > > control box was approximately = 110-120 W. > > To me this seems to mean that they measured power before the control box > in both > tests, and during the dummy test they were able to directly hook their > equipment > to the wires going to the reactor since the proprietary industrial trade > secret > waveform wasn't applied. > > The dummy run was after the March test, and that box wasn't used in the December run, so it says nothing about how they measured the power in the Dec run. And in the analysis of the Dec data, they don't subtract anything for power consumption by the supply. They use the measured power directly. And anyway, connected "directly to the ecat HT" doesn't mean connected to the power supply. ----- But I have two comments about all this quibbling. 1. It reveals a pathetically badly written and organized paper, when people can't agree on where the power was measured, and people like Mark can read it 3 times and still not know that 3-phase power was used. 2. That the measurement of the power on the ecat was permitted in the blank run, but not in the live run should raise a huge red flag (and that's right next to the flag raised because the power regimen was stated to be different). You say they didn't use the proprietary waveform in the blank run, but the paper says "The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box, but without the ON/OFF cycle of the resistor coils." If that's so, then it should be ok to measure the power directly on the ecat during the on and off cycles. After all, they did it in December. It's all way too dodgy for words. No one would do it this way if they had what Rossi claims. > > In all cases, three-phase power makes good sense for an industrial system, > especially if it is meant to generate power. > > It's no where near an industrial state, and there's no need to finalize the power supply until they make an ecat that has industrial use. > > So, in the end you admit that it's not needed for this purpose, and that > > it's a bother. Why bother? I explained that. It forces the use of a > specific > > mains line that will not be used for anything else. It increases the > > complexity, which gives much opportunity for deception. And it makes much > > higher power available, in case he wants to make it glow. > > What? I'm not admitting anything. You said: "As a side node, the use of tri-phase power seems to indicates that this is the real deal. Why would indeed Rossi bother with that if he didn't have a true need to industrialize his product?" That sounds like an admission you don't thing he needs it for the demo, but bothered to put it in because of a need to industrialize. > Triphase is legit and not suspicious, that's all I'm > saying. > > Your claim that it only makes sense as a scamming aid remains unsupported. > It's supported by the absence of 3-phase in the steam cats, by the claim he can use gas for external heating, by the claimed periods of self-sustaining.
