Jones and Dave-- I think the control is a two parameter issue, temperature and external magnetic field strength. An increased temperature prevents a large scale excursion of the reaction, but does not control the situation on a nano scale. The external magnetic field, H, induces an internal magnetic field, B, in the nano Ni particles and initiates a local reaction. The temperature increases and changes the magnetic susceptibility of the Ni and reduces the B field accordingly. The reaction is not too fast to be controlled, since there is a time constant with the increase and decrease of the nano B fields as a function of the changing H field and temperatures.
A key parameter in the time constant is the size of the Ni nano particles. Ahern noted that less than 3 nm is bad because of run away reaction. The smaller the size the quicker the reaction responds to a changing magnetic field. Pulsing the H field is important in limiting the reaction. I think that National Instruments helped Rossi work out the dynamics and control of the reactor. NI would be perfect for such a task. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 7:51 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi long term test From: David Roberson If the Rossi has the proper control of his device established and positive thermal feedback of adequate gain is achieved then the COP should not be an issue. Dave, Doesn’t that assume that the source of the gain is nuclear? If the source of gain is not “nuclear” (per se), then we must ask - what if the gain is limited to a level which is a low multiple of what we have heretofore defined as “chemical”? Control, and positive feedback are very important, but now there is an upper limit. Yes, we can argue that any gain should allow infinite COP if it can be fed back in toto, but thermal feedback may not be adequate to provide P-in when there is a ceiling on the net energy available from the underlying reaction. Jones
