In reply to Alberto De Souza's message of Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:09:27 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
Here is a third:-
In an environment where ionizing radiation with an energy in excess of
about 10
eV is present, additional atoms in the metal can become ionized providing
excess
free electrons. This will
you make a very good remark.
many claims of artifact that skeptic propose since decades would deserve a
Nobel price. Strange they don't investigate and patent it!
(I eliminate some claim which have more room in a festival of magic, and
which could be sold).
anyway this does not eliminate case of
In reply to Alberto De Souza's message of Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:59:30 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
If we see resistance variation, it
is all the better, more new physics.
I have already provided two reasons why the resistance might vary:-
1) Aluminium coating.
2) Hydrogen absorption.
Here is a third:-
In
In the wire experiments of Francesco Celani, there was a large drop in the
resistance of the wire. I believe that the wire was infused with 1
dimensional nano structures(nanowire) that carry current ballisticly.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:46 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Alberto De
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:46 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Alberto De Souza's message of Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:59:30 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
If we see resistance variation, it
is all the better, more new physics.
I have already provided two reasons why the resistance might vary:-
1)
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:58 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
In reply to Alberto De Souza's message of Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:16:09 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
I completely agree. But I do not believe we are going to see large
differences between resistances, except in cases of heater failure. But
even
Calorimetry is always a problem in LENR context because it is being used to
try and prove that LERN is real. But it is very hard to use it for that.
Calorimetry is good for evaluating how much one would gain with LENR, once
it is proved that we have excess heat (one might argue that this was
If the resistence of the reactor with fuel decreases by three times, the
power received by this reactor would be reduced by the same amount (if the
voltage is kept constant in this reactor) or more (if the voltage is kept
constant in the circuit composed by the two reactors in series). In both
When the resistance drops on the LENR reactor heater coil by three times,
how will that effect the current going through the null reactor's heating
coil?
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Alberto De Souza
alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote:
Calorimetry is always a problem in LENR context
@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Saturday, March 21, 2015 12:03 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: Am I the only one..
If the resistence of the reactor with fuel decreases by three times, the
power received by this reactor would be reduced by the same amount (if the
voltage is kept constant in this reactor) or more
@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Am I the only one..
If the resistence of the reactor with fuel decreases by three times, the
power received by this reactor would be reduced by the same amount (if the
voltage is kept constant in this reactor) or more
In reply to Alberto De Souza's message of Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:46:16 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
To be sure about the resistance, one needs to measure the voltage and the
current at regular intervals. Direct measurement of current (series
ammeter) and voltage are desirable and easy to do precisely today
If the objective is to compare the temperatures, then one has to ensure
that the
input _power_ to both coils is identical. It is not enough to just
_measure_ the
input power. It needs to be _actively controlled_ to ensure that it is
identical.
I beg to disagree. If we have a large COP (
*delurks*
Frustrating that with COP's 2 and output powers of 100's to 1000's of
watts that simple calorimetry cannot be used to remove doubt, instead we
have 5-10 equivocal demonstrations from Rossi over last 4 years,
(supposedly a genius, yet not competent or willing to do this relatively
minor
For that matter, without the calorimetry we don't really know if it's 3
COP. It could be 1 COP and the run without the fuel was just 1/3 COP.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
That being said, is it possible that the the first run just burned
That being said, is it possible that the the first run just burned up the
shell of the tube / insulation and is now radiating heat more easily.
At some point Alexander is going to have to remove the fuel and re-run the
test.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
16 matches
Mail list logo
