Maybe I am wrong about that. I see what you mean Jack and it makes me suspicious about the reported COP. If the reported value is accurate then the device must be operating in some type of latch up mode. A normal feedback system that is stable can handle any input power and only one output power exists for each value of input.
If the input must be increased to that high level first then there would exist
at least two static output powers when 300 watts of input is applied. The only
way this shows up in my models is when a negative resistance region is present
and even then the output transitions rapidly and uncontrolled when the
threshold of negative resistance is breached. Something is not adding up. My
guess is that the COP is not nearly as large as reported.
I will give this issue some more thought.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 20, 2015 10:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:fast LENR news about Parkhomov, etc.,
Dave,
I don't understand how that could be if he has not been showing excess heat
with any temperatures below 1050-1070C. If the reaction doesn't start until
those temperatures are reached, how could 300W get you there?
Jack
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
If positive thermal feedback is present, then he could have just used 300 W
to get to 1100C. You should not need to get to 1100C at full power and back
off if the device is working according to my models. Of course, the amount of
fuel would have to be very carefully adjusted to achieve that level of COP and
maintain stability with static drive. I am assuming that he does not have a
negative resistance region present within the operating region.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Cole < jcol...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l < vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 20, 2015 8:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:fast LENR news about Parkhomov, etc.,
In thinking more about Parkhomov's most recent experiment, there is one piece
of information that would put to rest my doubts. Did he have to use nearly 1KW
of power to bring the reactor up to 1100C and was then able to back off on the
applied power? If he only had to apply 300W to bring it up to 1100 or 1200C,
then something was wrong with the temperature measuring. Conversely, if it
took the same amount of power to step it up through the temperature ranges, and
then required only 300W to keep it at 1200C, then I would be convinced.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com>
wrote:
One way that this null hypothesis might be setup is to use two identical
constant current power supplies and run the LENR reactor test side by side then
switch the connection of the power supplies periodically between the null and
functional reactor to show the energy gain is not a function of the power
supply while the functional reactor is demonstrating LENR and the null is not.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Alberto De Souza
<alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote:
When I said "To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an
experiment showing significant excess heat side by side with its null
hypothesis."
I meant "To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an experiment
showing large excess heat side by side with its null hypothesis."
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:03 PM,
<torulf.gr...@bredband.net> wrote:
If I not remember wrong, Swartz had serial tests of nanors.
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:25:40 -0400, Alberto De Souza <
alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I mean "(very truthful, but we need two ammeters, therefore, problems with
skeptics)".
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Alberto De Souza
<alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote:
If we put the heaters in series, we are sure the current is the same in both.
It is easy to measure the voltage on each one of them with a hand voltimeter.
With current and voltage, we can compute the resistance of each one and the
power each one is dissipating.
Conversely, if we put them in parallel, the voltage is the same. But we have
to measure the current on each one of them. One can do that with a series
ammeter (very truthful, but we need to ammeters, therefore, problems with
skeptics) or with a inductive one (not so much truthful because the measurement
is indirect; problems with skeptics). I would go with the series circuit. One
just need more voltage from the variac transformer to power two reactors.
Alberto.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Bob Cook
<frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The resistance of the two legs of the
circuit components will change as a function of temperature. Thus, if power
input is to be the same or even predictable, the resistances of the coils along
their length as a function of temperature should be known. This bit of
information is not trivial.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From:
Axil Axil
To:
vortex-l
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:fast LENR news about
Parkhomov, etc.,
Series and parallel circuits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits
In a series circuit, the current through each of the components is the same,
and the voltage across the circuit is
the sum of the voltages across each component.
[1] In a parallel circuit, the voltage across each of the components is
the same, and the total current is the sum of the currents through each
component. [3]
We would also need to show that the
current to the two reactors was the same using two ammeters connected to the
heater coil of each reactor.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Axil Axil
<janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
Would we not want to wire the reactors in parallel to avoid a voltage drop
between the two reactors if they were connected in series?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Alberto De Souza
<alberto.investi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Alain, you are right in your analysis. A skeptic may point out all the
problems you have mentioned. But we have something new now: MFMP and their live
science approach. If they show (live) the complete process of puting the two
reactors in series and the reactor with fuel shows significantly higher
temperature for enough time, it is done. No skeptic whining will be strong
enough to change the tide. All big-funded laboratories in world will try and
replicate the results in the following few days (all relevant data for
replication will be in the Internet). MFMP is doing everything right, and they
are using the weapons of today - immediate socialization of information. If
they are successful in a experiment as I have suggested, i.e. a live experiment
with a clear null hypothesis (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis), they will make history.
To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an experiment showing
significant excess heat side by side with its null hypothesis. Either the
experimenters try to show excess heat with calorimetry (too hard) or they do
the experimental test and the null hyposthesis in different moments and not
taking proper care with the control variables.
Alberto.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Alain Sepeda
<alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote:
hidden wire, RF supply, solar cell, can explain an apparent self-sustain.
David have a good idea, that skeptic do the experiment themselves.
some have done in their time and now they are here ;-) accused of fraud an
delusion.
moreover most skeptic refuse to experiment, and when experimenting have a
tendency to reject any success and not to try long.
It have to be easy.
easy, with a theory, with a practical interest.
I'm shocked today by the fact that most people instead of saying "it is
unreal", say me "show me the reactor in home depot"...
either a theory or an application.
there is no room in Science for unexplained phenomenon that are not on the
market.
2015-03-20 16:50 GMT+01:00 Daniel Rocha
<danieldi...@gmail.com>:
Alain, all of these difficulties can be overcome by a self sustained system.
3.2x system can vaporize, condense at certain hight, and use the fall of water
to generate power.
