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.com>m...@theworld.com> wrote:
At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole
<<mailto:jcol...@gmail.com>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
