Dear David,
It might be informative if your model could be modified to check the heat production of the nickel particles and their temperature and the flow of that heat from the central channel that encloses the nickel particles to the outside edge of the reactor some centimeters away so that that temperature is maintained at a steady 1400C. It seems to me intuitively that the temperature of those particles being less than one gram in weight can support the 1400C external temperature without approaching a temperature that is beyond the melting point of nickel. I figure that there is a delta T of about 200C involved between the heat production zone and the outside edge of the reactor. That puts the nickel particles at 1600C or greater. The particles should have all melted. Something does not make sense in this regard considering that these nickel particles are receiving 900 watts of thermal stimulation in addition to the heat that they are generating through the LENR reaction. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > The three phase connection is not too surprising if we assume that many > more of these units are to be mounted in a complete system. It would be > extra work for Rossi to construct a new device using only one phase for the > scientists to measure. I give him a pass on this point. > > In the past I have dedicated a great deal of effort toward proving that > the input power can be calculated by only considering the fundamental > component of the input current. Power from a sinewave source can only be > extracted by the current that is flowing at the same frequency as the > source voltage. You can look this up in text books if you are curious. > Briefly, power delivered from a sine wave source is determined by taking > the product of the RMS voltage at that frequency and multiplying it by the > RMS current at the same frequency while taking the phase difference into > account. Any DC or harmonic currents entering the device due to internal > effects are not able to change that calculation except for how they might > enter into changing the current at the fundamental. > > I have made spice models of the current problem that you are mentioning > and proved that this assertion is accurate. Remember that the same issue > arose after the last test. > > Every indication is that the input power was measured accurately. > > It may not be quite as simple as some believe to achieve stable power > control for the CATs. My simulation indicates that the COP changes > throughout the input and hence output power range. The incremental COP is > at a maximum below the power at which the overall COP reaches it peak. > And, to complicate matters, the overall COP actually falls once the peak > level is exceeded. This can be viewed as a type of negative resistance > region. I am still reviewing the model to better understand the > implications. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 5:08 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. > > All fair points of view Dave. Though with regard to 3 phase, at 900W > input there is obviously no need, adds a lot of mechanical complexity (3 > heater wires rather than 1) and a little more electrical complexity and > would still get impulsive waveform using rectified DC + half H bridge to > provide an ac pwm output - really simple linear power control that is dead > simple to measure and control power output of, with much greater scope for > variation of pulse frequency and duration. I doubt you or any other > engineer or electrician would choose to do it the crude and restrictive way > he has. > > Haven't tackled the electrical side of things much; but as an EE would > you agree that conceptually it would be possible to hide a >10kHz AC signal > superimposed on the grid supplied 3phase with amplitude a little less than > the AC so as not to trigger the Triac turn off? (Hardware pretty simple, > just 50% duty cycle driven half-H bridge of phase added to the 50Hz signal > by means of a series transformer). My rough calculation suggest that could > allow 3x the power to be delivered to the reactor without showing up on the > PCE meter or having any DC component. Not that I think it likely (far too > much potential for getting caught by someone with a multimeter or > oscilloscope), but if the power meters were known to have a max frequency > threshold then could this allow you to deliver more power without it being > easily spotted? > > On 16 October 2014 16:12, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > >> Sorry Robert, I will make every attempt to use your correct name in the >> future. Thanks for clarifying your reasons for exhibiting the strong >> critical position against the report. >> >> I admit that I harbor questions about the accuracy of the temperature >> measurements for many of the reasons that you point out. To me the slope >> in COP with temperature and the particle analysis are strong indicators >> that the device is generating some type of nuclear power within its core. >> I can not honestly believe that Rossi would be attempting a scam as you >> seem to think...he risks far too much. One tiny slip and he is toast. >> >> I recall reading in his blog that Ni62 was the active element from a >> couple of years back. At that time he was talking of developing a process >> that enriched the raw material in order to achieve that goal. Could that >> have been what he thought was happening within his reactor at the time? >> That would explain why he bought some of that isotope for research. I give >> him the benefit of the doubt. >> >> The 3 phase power concern just does not hold water to me. Remember the >> device tested is not normally used in isolation, but instead is a part of a >> much larger system. Phase balancing is quite common when a large amount of >> power is required and I would likely have done exactly the same thing as >> Rossi. >> >> There are other reasons that I believe the test proves that power is >> generated within the core that I have covered previously and will not >> repeat at this time since it is late here. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 2:20 am >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. >> >> (Dave, my granddad is Bob, I'm Robert :) ), I would be over the moon if >> we had incontrovertible evidence of >COP, but with a strong grounding in >> and respect for the scientific method you cannot and should not ever give >> bold assertions a free ride without vigorous critical review the skeptics >> of the world won't go any easier on him than I will. Which is what I am >> trying to provide, and unfortunately the harder I have looked at it and the >> more issues I have analysed the more likely it seems that the gain = 1 >> hypothesis is as strong as gain >1. >> >> Occams razor would then favour gain=1 rather than a collection of >> miraculously fortuitous LENR characteristics that include numerous >> transmutation pathways (fission and fusion of Ni and Li) without ionising >> radiation, or change in reaction rate as it goes from natural isotope >> ratios to essentially all Li6+Ni2, But my suspicions really shot through >> the roof after reading that Rossi bought 99% Ni62 from a commercial >> supplier at one point - and that is why I decided to look so hard at the >> physical attributes of the device (thermodynamics/hightemp materials are my >> forte) - to see whether it was thermodynamically unabiguous that there was >> gain >1. >> >> The needless ambiguity of the test raises my ire, that the power input >> is so clumsily measured when it would be so easy to use series resistors, >> triac switched single phase AC, PWM DC power supply or etc with the same >> electromagnetic effects within the reactor. Rossi with his resources could >> get someone to make such an unambiguous power supply/meter in a day - but >> as usual he has chosen the dark path of deliberate obfuscation. Likewise >> with the lack of thermocouples or proper flow calorimetry - so easy when >> the COP and power output are large. >> >> But back to the physical problems: >> -The major red flag is that of inconel heating wire temp being >> necessarily <1300-1350°C (and realistically probably lower) while >> thermography is claiming 1412°C surface temps screams out that there is a >> massive error in the calorimetry, rendering the claims of gain meaningless >> unless or until that error can be explained satisfactorily. Hopeful >> theories about refractories wires etc just don't stand up to practical >> considerations (joining them to inconel that will anyway be melted at >> joint, forming these horribly brittle materials, keeping them away from >> air). >> -Knowing that the alumina is translucent also opens up so many >> possibilities for errors - and the translucence is unknown and unquantified >> for the material used over the range of temperatures and for the range of >> wavelengths of emitted light created by hot embedded wires - claims of it >> not being a problem don't hold water due to the above demonstrated/known >> error in the reactor temperature. We have no idea how much porosity it >> has, how thin it is, or what surface impurities might accumulate during >> long term high temperature operation to alter emissivity/translucence etc. >> -That I have identified a likely construction for the reactor that gives >> the visual results seen during testing (glowing wires wrapped around inner >> tube, but with minimal and variable contact quenching bought on by >> differential thermal expansion), all encased in outer shell), with no >> reactor gain only increases the strength of the gain=0 hypothesis. >> >> This could all be fixed easily by Rossi releasing more details of >> construction - even photos of cut-open reactor or just doing a proper >> independent black box test with good calorimetry. But as ever he is >> playing games due to paranoia, perverseness or worse motives. He could >> have made billions by now and the world would be massively better off if he >> wasn't persisting in his school-boy intrigues. >> >> On 16 October 2014 12:25, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> Bob, you appear to be too convinced that the gain is unity and are >>> going to great lengths to obtain that result. The testers are well >>> respected scientists and no one should assume that they are so easily >>> misslead. Besides, there are several measurements that support the fact >>> that the COP is greater than unity which you seem to brush off. >>> >>> I wonder about whether or not the actual temperature is correct as well, >>> but am in no position to prove one way or the other. The most important >>> observation that supports the elevated COP is the slope of output power >>> versus input power that they measure about their chosen operating point. I >>> can think of no way to fake that measurement without a dose of true magic. >>> And then it would be extremely difficult to understand why the measured >>> behavior tends to follow what my simulation predicts. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 11:53 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire. >>> >>> Nullis in verba. :) I believe my eyes more than others words. In >>> finding so many potential faults with so little published information (they >>> had a month to investigate!!) I can only say that I am unimpressed by the >>> critical observational skills of the testers. If they had approached this >>> demo with a more critical mindset I might be more inclined to believe them. >>> >>> On 16 October 2014 11:41, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for posting your ideas. >>>> I hadn't seen that picture of the march 2013 reactor sitting on the >>>> scale with heating coils visible. >>>> >>>> Why don't we just accept that the authors of the 2014 test also know >>>> enough about the construction of the reactor to say that the dark bands >>>> align with the wires? >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I wrote up my analysis of the "banding" : (Draft -- I'll rename it >>>>> later). >>>>> >>>>> http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014a.php >>>>> >>>>> Short answer : we don't even know whether the bright bands line up >>>>> with the wires, or the gaps between them. >>>>> >>>>> There are multiple explanations, which depend on the structure used >>>>> to hold the wires, and on the properties of everything. >>>>> >>>>> Insufficient data !!!!! >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
