Dave, If someone could ask Parkhomov about how much power was needed to get it to the operating temperatures, then we would have a pretty good idea if something was wrong.
I think I understand to an extent what you are saying about two static output powers. Are you saying that it would require the Pxs output to be static and joule heating to be static? His input power measurement technique is a bit unusual to me, but it may just be that I'm not familiar with the method. Jack On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:45 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < [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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage> >>>>>>> across the circuit is the sum of the voltages across each component. >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#cite_note-R.26H321-1> >>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#cite_note-R.26H324-3> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
