The hot-cat contains two interrelated systems elements: the mouse and the cat.
The mouse is based on the original system’s design that Rossi tried to interest DGT in. It got into control problems when it got too hot but it was stable at low output (COP) levels. The mouse is driven by a primary resistance heater. And I speculate that it is most productive at a resonant temperature of which there may be many levels in the NiH design. The H-Cat is driven by the mouse and its resonant temperature is different than the temperature that the mouse operates at. I suspect that there is a differing micro-particles diameter sizes in the cat and the mouse to support differing resonant temperatures. The cat and mouse technology is a two stage system that features differing temperatures to enable controllability. The mouse is driven at high temperatures but has a marginal COP to provide control through temperature stability through low COP. To provide good controllability, the cat has a high gain but the mouse provides a decoupling between the high temperature primary electrical heating drive element and high thermal gain of the cat. The mouse may also provide hydride based hydrogen production and reabsorption based on temperature. On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > Hi John, > > > > Yes it is a mistake to read too much into this amp-turn detail. It is more > of a curiosity. > > > > The important thing to try to fit into the big picture, especially as a > design option for kilowatt level LENR, seems to be that external magnetism > at a moderate level is beneficial (per Letts/Cravens), and furthermore, > that a surprising way to achieve a magnetic field is via resistance heating > wire itself when properly configured (instead of having a dedicated > electromagnet plus dedicated heating, as two separate inputs). > > > > AFAIK – no one prior to Rossi has realized this dual use for resistance > heating. It could be the main reason that the hot cat can achieve the > remarkable performance claimed. In fact, Rossi himself may not have been > aiming for a magnetic effect, per se. > > > > Some months ago, no answer was forthcoming for the question of whether the > new TIP report concerned the hot version or the original version or both. > Mats Lewin seems to think it is the hot version. > > > > The hot version fits more neatly into the SPP theoretical base and > magnetism fits nicely as well… not to mention conversion of heat to > electricity. > > > > *From:* John Berry > > > > That oem page just turns out to be about amps/turns not being as accurate > as a full calculation. > > > > No actual coil gauss tests were made despite the writer claiming that they > should be. > > Hence no magic as such, the MOD-A is calculated to be no stronger despite > a higher amps/turns, given an identical ID and length then this must mean a > drop in the overall current density per square cm of coil cross section. > > > > But would result in the OD increasing in the amps turns is higher. > > > > This makes sense since it says there are more amps, more amps requires a > thicker wire and thicker wires don't pack as well assuming they are round. > > > > John > > > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > If you have seen the famous image of the Rossi HT "HotCat" showing the > resistance wiring, then you probably realize that the electrical input, > even > though it is used for heating, and even though it is not applied constantly > - has an equivalent amp-turn property. > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/14/cold-fusion/viewgallery/29059 > 8 > > It can be estimated that the amp-turn equivalent of the device pictured is > 10,000 if one includes the turns around the wire axis at 10 amps input - > but > that this arrangement cannot be modeled as a solenoid, and the resultant > magnetic field would be complex, probably helical and only a few hundred > gauss. Still, the 10,000 amp-turns stuck in my mind as worth remembering, > since Letts/Cravens found that LENR benefits from modest fields of a few > hundred gauss and not higher. > > As fate would have it, this value turned up recently as a "magic rating" in > another field > > http://www.oem-usa.com/news/info_The_magical_mag_coil.html > > ... magic indeed. The $64 question in all of this is why a small field > works > best - and does a small helical field work best of all? > > >
