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 <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> wrote: If I not remember wrong, Swartz had serial tests of nanors. On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:25:40 -0400, Alberto De Souza <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: 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.
