Axil's comment as to where the voltage must be measured to determine the
correct power in the reactor fuel is right. The problem is designing a t/c
connection that will remain in tact for any length of time at 1200 C. Once the
temperature drop across the active region of the alumina vessel is measured and
shown to be predictable over the temperature range for control, then a
controlling t/c can be installed on the exterior of the alumina vessel and no
need the internal one(s) for control. That may be the scheme that Parkhomov
used? He calculated or otherwise determined the internal to external
temperature drop and used an externally located t/c to control electrical power
input.
To get a more reliable t/c to "calibrate" the external control t/c, it may be
desirable to design an internal metallic well to fit inside the reactor at its
center line into which an easily replaceable t/c can be introduced to better
measure center line temperatures. Such a well could be a thin metallic tube
inside a thin alumina tube, such that the fuel would only be in contact with
alumina, although in an annular space. If the t/c fails, it could be replaced
without opening the reactor and possibly without even cooling down. Such an
"access port" to the center of the reactor may be desirable for other types of
instrumentation, such as an induction coil to measure magnetic fields, or
placement of materials that may be made radioactive by neutron flux. It also
would be useful to be able to introduce a positron emitter such as radioactive
Na-22 to calibrate for 0.511 MEV gamma emission with a co-incidence counter.
Such a set up may allow the determination of any directionality associated with
the magnetic field or the LENR reaction itself.
These ideas assume that the LENR reaction may be affected by the
instrumentation port. However, the thermal monitoring or other instrumentation
will be useful in the null experimentation to understand conditions established
by the electrical power itself and transmission/shielding of the reactor setup
itself. For example, if light transmissivity was of interest, a glass tube
could be introduced into the center of the reactor in a null experiment to
measure light transmission with a known light source.
Bob Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: Alberto De Souza
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:fast LENR news about Parkhomov, etc.,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree Axil. If I were to design this, I would work out a constant power
supply algorithm for each unit. I think it would be difficult to wire them in
series and have them behave the same. A control system that adjusts the power
level to each cell with changing resistance seems like it would make a more
convincing demo.
This would make the hypothesis test too complex to convince most people. And,
if we have a large COP (> 2), this would not be necessary.
I do not expect that the resistance of the heaters will significantly vary
(except to infinity in case of heater failure). One might want to test the
hypothesis that LENR changes the resistance of the heater. But that would be
another experiment. I propose to consider the resistance of the heaters a
control variable, since we can control them (measured periodically and take the
measurement into account on the computation of the input power).
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
The heat generated by any section of the wire that does not come into
contact with the reactor core to transfer heat to the reactor must be
subtracted from the total power consumed by the heater. This includes any inter
reactor wire runs between the null and active reactor cores, The power consumed
by each section of wire must be determined and the power adjusted accordingly.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:08 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
In reply to Alberto De Souza's message of Sat, 21 Mar 2015 01:33:55
-0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>Actually, the resistence of heating wires varies very little with
>temperature. In the case of Kanthal A-1 (that MFMP was using), it
increases
>by a factor of only 5% from 100 to 1400 degress Celsius (see
>http://kanthal.com/en/products/material-datasheets/wire/resistance-heating-wire-and-resistance-wire/kanthal-a-1/).
>So, considering a high COP (3), this control-variable variance (the
wire
>resistance in the reactors) is negligible.
>
>Alberto.
This assumes that the chemical composition of the wires remains
constant. A
coating of Al &/or absorption of Hydrogen could both change the
resistance.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
