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.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
