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 with affordable equiment. To avoid doubts about when we have excess heat, two reactors should be run together with the heater coils in series - one with fuel and one empty. This way we are absolutely sure we have the same current. To obtain the resistance of each heater coil, one needs only to measure the voltage on their terminals. With this setup, we have all we need to measure precisely the input power of each reactor. Assuming that the resistance of the coils are the same (easy to achieve: make the two coils with the same amount of wire; temperature is not much relevant for the value of resistance since heater wires have about the same resistance for the range of temperatures of interest; see http://kanthal.com/en/products/material-datasheets/wire/resistance-heating-wire-and-resistance-wire/kanthal-a-1/), it is easy to spot excess heat if we have a large COP (> 2).
Alberto. On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > Getting back to the issue of understanding side by side reactions and the > production of excess heat being an indication of LENR, again you need to > understand the amount of electrical power deposited in the reactor vs the > amount of power deposited in the null experiment in the same comparable > location of the electrical heating elements. And if you do not know the > respective resistances of the electrical heating elements, inferences about > the consistency of the respective electric power is only a guess. > > Jack Cole just ran a null experiment (maybe not null) that melted his > alumina along the heating element. This certainly could change the > electrical resistance of the circuit in the hot zone of the heater element > and make understanding of the power deposited difficult as a function of > time. > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Alberto De Souza <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *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 (if the voltage is kept > constant in the circuit composed by the two reactors in series). In both > cases, if the reactor with fuel is hotter, we will have even stronger proof > of excess heat. > > It is important to note that a reduction of three times in the resistance > with a Khantal A-1 wire it is very hard to go unnoticed. If it occurs only > in the reactor with fuel, we have a jackpot of new physics: unexpected > excess heat due to the LENR fuel and unexpected negative temperature > coefficient of the resistence of the heater (NTC, which by itself has many > relevant applications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermistor). Notice > that proper NTC in the heater wire would help stabilizing the reaction. > > Alberto. > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> already proved, but the current scientific establishment does not think so). >>> >>> The LENR community must first focus on this binary hypothesis: "A >>> reactor loaded with LENR fuel produces excess (non-chemical) heat" >>> (true/false). To test this hypothesis one has to run an experiment to test >>> exactly that: is the reactor with fuel hotter? This simplifies the problem >>> a lot. >>> >>> To eliminate the variables that are not relevant to the test, one has to >>> run two identical reactors in the same room, at the same time, with >>> identical heating coils in series; one with the variable of interest (the >>> LENR fuel) and one without. Parkhomov has observed COP 3 in his reactors >>> using calorimetry. A hypothesis test as suggested above, performed live by >>> the MFMP, will show large differences (hundreds of degrees) in temperature >>> between the reactors, leaving little doubt (if any) that we have excess >>> heat. >>> >>> Alberto. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Robert Lynn < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> *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 part right, and endless excuses and supporter rationalisations about >>>> why he doesn't need to do it well - which stink). Still awaiting combined >>>> big COP+bullet proof calorimetry from newer replications. At these outputs >>>> simple <20% error flow calorimetry setup is probably only $1-200 in parts >>>> and 1-2 days in build time (aquarium pump, couple of buckets and >>>> thermocouples). >>>> >>>> Might it be that when better calorimetry is applied good news >>>> disappears (eg MFMP)? In which case sloppier calorimetry would be more >>>> rewarding and get more traction given the illusion of success. >>>> >>>> I've given up on Rossi (Lugano sunk him in my eyes), and my hope for >>>> others will probably not last into 2016 without some good results. Looking >>>> forward to better demos and calorimetry from multiple sources. >>>> >>>> *relurks* >>>> >>>> On 20 March 2015 at 10:40, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> .. that wants the replication to be real so that the global energy / >>>>>>> scientific revolution starts in some old fringe Russian scientist's >>>>>>> living >>>>>>> room?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
