Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
Dr. Swartz, Yes, that helps to greatly increase my confidence in what you've achieved. I know you have put a great deal of time, effort, thought, and money into this over the years to achieve something remarkable. I'm looking forward to your papers and what you will achieve in the future. Best regards, Jack On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.comwrote: At 07:17 AM 7/11/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: *Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison?* Jack, Yes. And we put a measured range of input powers through both the ohmic control and device which are adjacent; so all extremes are examined. Achieving this is complicated for both, and very difficult with the nanomaterials. . The PHUSORs (aqueous CF/LANR) are in low paramagnetic heavy water with cell impedances ca. 300 kilohms to 800 kilohms, which are probably an impedance higher than your typical electrolytic systems. This resistance decreases (degrades) over months to ~5 to 20 kilohms, as described in the many papers on this (eg. from ICCF10). The NANORs (dry preloaded CF/LANR components) start at gigohms or higher, and are driven to resistances ca. megohms to tens of kilohms depending upon the type of NANOR. Some change is degradation, some is material change including redistribution associated with dielectric polarization (such conduction is, of course, necessarily connected through Hilbert space and the imaginary part of the complex permittivity), and some catastrophic changes under conditions associated with what appears to be avalanche electron breakdown, as we reported in several papers. If my email works tonight, you should shortly have copies of the papers; two are preprints from the upcoming Proc. ICCF-17. Hope that helps. Good luck. Mitchell Swartz *Under the right conditions, even the smallest ripple can create a mighty wave. *–Zensunni maxim On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs).Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.comwrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
One of the more reassuring things when you see heat from current through a loaded powder is the change in thermal output with applied magnetic fields. That is the thing that help convince me. Mitch, would you care to share any experience with mag. fields? The impedance match of the ceramic based materials is a lot of work. I applaud MS's work and efforts. I basically gave up working at the high impedance levels and moved to carbon based material as a way to isolate the particles. My electronic design skills were not the match for high R's and the lower R is easier for me to work with. If people doubt Mitch's work, I would point out that the NANOR's where run at MIT within the a department dealing with Electronics. I am sure that any obvious errors would be quickly ruled out. D2 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:17:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question From: jcol...@gmail.com To: m...@theworld.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
RE: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 09:24 AM 7/11/2013, Dennis Cravens wrote: One of the more reassuring things when you see heat from current through a loaded powder is the change in thermal output with applied magnetic fields. That is the thing that help convince me. Mitch, would you care to share any experience with mag. fields? ... D2 Thanks, Dennis. That is so true. and would add that that is verified when such similar changes are not seen effecting the ohmic controls at the same location, as you know. Also quite reassured when we see large progressive rises in excess heat (beyond the expected thermal dissipation) with small increases in input power as we ascend the OOP manifold. Published some of the effects of applied H-fields on CF/LANR aqueous systems (impact is, at least in part, on loading) in Swartz, M.R. Impact of an Applied Magnetic Field on the Electrical Impedance of a LANR Device, Volume 4 JCMNS, Proceedings of the March 2010, New Energy Technology Symposium held at the 239th American Chemical Society National Meeting and Exposition in San Francisco (2011) which is at the uncensored, terrific, CMNS site. For me, loading the lattice has been the key to active CF/LANR systems since March 23, '89. Am busy working on a write-up of the effects wrought upon nanostructured CF/LANR systems by applied magnetic field intensities, at this very moment. Best regards, Mitchell -- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:17:33 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question From: jcol...@gmail.com To: m...@theworld.com CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.comjcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 07:17 AM 7/11/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Dr. Swartz, Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt comparison? Jack, Yes. And we put a measured range of input powers through both the ohmic control and device which are adjacent; so all extremes are examined. Achieving this is complicated for both, and very difficult with the nanomaterials. . The PHUSORs (aqueous CF/LANR) are in low paramagnetic heavy water with cell impedances ca. 300 kilohms to 800 kilohms, which are probably an impedance higher than your typical electrolytic systems. This resistance decreases (degrades) over months to ~5 to 20 kilohms, as described in the many papers on this (eg. from ICCF10). The NANORs (dry preloaded CF/LANR components) start at gigohms or higher, and are driven to resistances ca. megohms to tens of kilohms depending upon the type of NANOR. Some change is degradation, some is material change including redistribution associated with dielectric polarization (such conduction is, of course, necessarily connected through Hilbert space and the imaginary part of the complex permittivity), and some catastrophic changes under conditions associated with what appears to be avalanche electron breakdown, as we reported in several papers. If my email works tonight, you should shortly have copies of the papers; two are preprints from the upcoming Proc. ICCF-17. Hope that helps. Good luck. Mitchell Swartz Under the right conditions, even the smallest ripple can create a mighty wave. –Zensunni maxim On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz mailto:m...@theworld.comm...@theworld.com wrote: At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole mailto:jcol...@gmail.comjcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to thicker wire, and then I saw better heating. That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions. The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance than the control resistance. We try to make them equal, but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons, and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible, or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included. On the leads. We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components. The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads which are shown in the papers from ICCF10. That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs, in Swartz, M., Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate the Optimal Operating Point?, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006). The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an issue, and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical impedance is usually measured by four-terminal measurement. Also the excess heats are verified by several independent systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs). Mitchell Swartz
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Could the apparent excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)? I do not know but it sounds plausible. I have heard of similar errors. With such tiny power levels you have to measure right at the edge of the calorimeter envelope. That is, right where the wires go in. I do not trust such tiny power levels. They can be measured with microcalorimeters. Rob Duncan knows a great deal about microcalorimeters, including the type that can measure the heat from a single cosmic ray collision. These devices are fundamentally different in design from what Swartz uses, and what other cold fusion researchers use. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
I wrote: Duncan knows a great deal about microcalorimeters, including the type that can measure the heat from a single cosmic ray collision. These devices are fundamentally different in design from what Swartz uses, and what other cold fusion researchers use. The NRL and Tsinghua U. used conventional microcalorimeters. The difference between an ordinary calorimeter and microcalorimeter resembles the difference between a light microscope and an S.E.M. Swartz is using an ordinary (macro?) calorimeter at the limits of sensitivity. Any time you push an instrument to its limits you are asking for trouble. If you can, I recommend you boost the strength of the signal rather than trying to make a more sensitive instrument to detect it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
That makes sense to me. I suppose he hasn't done so because of the high cost of material. I may have to watch his videos again to see if he addressed this. I know he has put a great deal of thought into the calorimetry, but it needs to be scaled up. On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: Duncan knows a great deal about microcalorimeters, including the type that can measure the heat from a single cosmic ray collision. These devices are fundamentally different in design from what Swartz uses, and what other cold fusion researchers use. The NRL and Tsinghua U. used conventional microcalorimeters. The difference between an ordinary calorimeter and microcalorimeter resembles the difference between a light microscope and an S.E.M. Swartz is using an ordinary (macro?) calorimeter at the limits of sensitivity. Any time you push an instrument to its limits you are asking for trouble. If you can, I recommend you boost the strength of the signal rather than trying to make a more sensitive instrument to detect it. - Jed
