The amount of heat that is generated by the DGT device should be adequate to keep the reaction going without the additional heat from the resistors. This is somewhat different than Rossi's case because of the relative magnitude of the difference between the internal heat generated and that externally supplied. Also, it appears that the heating elements are driven all of the time. Perhaps Mats can verify the drive waveform that he saw being applied to the resistors to ensure this statement is correct.
If you assume that the resistors are driven continuously, then thermal control would not work effectively according to my model of a Rossi like device. All indications are that the HV discharge in the DGT case supplies the fuel or perhaps tiny localize extreme heating regions where the reaction occurs. The fuel supply could very well be modulated somewhat like fuel injection of a ICE if fresh ions are needed at the active sites. The plasma would perform this function. The localized heating might be seen as a result of the impact of the electrical discharge upon the nickel targets. This should cause local high temperatures that are far greater than the average temperature at which the device operates. One or both of these two processes might be taking place and controlling the reaction for DGT. I suggest that consideration be given to the fact that DGT did continue to supply power to the resistive elements throughout the demonstration. The level of this excitation was adjusted downward, but not entirely eliminated. Could it be that the device needs the magnetic field being released by these devices? Of course, it might be that some fine tuning of the input heating is required, but this seems strange considering the enormous heat being released by the core. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> To: Vortex List <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 5:50 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT Really Has Something Big Beside that question, one participant "ajb" on lenr-forum make a quick optimistic computation, based on the safe assumption that Defkalion is fooling nobody... (I hear the moderate and hard skeptics moan already). http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2136-Defkalion-Demo-During-ICCF-18-(Milano-)&p=5594&viewfull=1#post5594 so : Let us assume that LENR+ works, is not rocket science, and that Defkalion have simply said the truth. I hear the moderate and hard skeptics moan already - since it is an erroneous assumption I propose the skeptics don't comment; So I invoke the vortex-rule , ah ah. ;-) The goal is not to check if it is true, but what are the potential performance of Hyperion from the best data we have. AJB use the data from the Italian test (I did not check/see the data, please correct him ), because the US test was compromised by argon. from the data point he find COP of 20.9 and 18. then he make an assumption : that only the plasma excitation is required . It is rational since warming heat could be provided by the reaction itself. With that assumption, the COP could go to 167. I anticipate some technical problems to remove warming during cruise , since the reactor need some specific thermal gradient, which the reaction many not create naturally. anyway, some engineers may design the cooling and the reaction chamber, to enforce that gradient. If not easy to do just by design, maybe some controlled tap of coolant may dynamically control the gradient... I did not check the computation myself, and I imagine that you will do better than me. note that the assumption are the optimistic/realistic one : - no fraud - dry steam at 150C 1athm - good engineering to use reactor heat top heat itself in that optimistic context, tell me if AJB got it right, or not. Maybe there are errors in the measurements or computations, but the method seems a good start. 2013/7/29 Teslaalset <robbiehobbiesh...@gmail.com> There is a discrepancy on the HV power indeed. At some moment in the video Mats remarked that he measured 1100 Watt input power of the HV unit. There was no instant response to that remark. The wall dispay indicated around 200-250 Watt HV input power to the reactor. Despite the fact that it was mentioned that HV is modulated, the 1100 W remains a high value. HV units should have a higher efficiency than observed. Op maandag 29 juli 2013 schreef Craig (cchayniepub...@gmail.com) het volgende: On 07/28/2013 05:08 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: > There may well be a pressure (and temperature) drop down the output > tube to outlet --- but from steam tables and a guess at the tube size > and length I'd be surprised if it is more than about 0.5 bar -- so the > COP is most likely at the 10+ level. (Presuming that Mats' calculation > of the spark power is wrong). I read that Defkalion answered Mats Lewan's objection to the HV power. There is apparently a 20% duty cycle; so Mats calculated input power should have been divided by 5. I can't remember where I read this, however. Craig
