Re: [Vo]:No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: . In a related article, the same group shows that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate at at temperatures that were present in the universe's epochs. That results in what appears to be the Big Bang from our vantage point. That is when we look back in time to the 2.2 degree kelvin cosmological background maybe what we are looking at are the vast reaches of a BEC of gravitons. I say the BEC was not one containing Gravitons but instead Polaritons. During the time of radiation when light and matter combined into high energy polaritons that then created a Bosenova as seen in the DGT experiments. This is where inflation came from. No gravidity waves will be detected now because early expansion of the universe was cause by quantum mechanics and not gravity. This is the LENR theory of creation.
RE: [Vo]:Possible advantage of running dogbone type reactor at 181 C
BTW - one of the mysteries of Ni-H or more precisely, Ni-Li-H - now that a robust high temperature version has appeared, and seems to have been replicated by Parkhomov - is why anyone would be interested in the low temperature version. The low temperature version would be relegated to mundane space heating, as opposed to higher value-added applications like transportation. Yet Rossi himself seems to have abandoned the HT in favor of the original version -- and the infamous blue box, which only produces hot water and wet steam. One answer to this enigma is that Ikegami's reaction, using liquid lithium and protons in a resonance mode at the lithium phase change - will actually produce a higher COP than the hot version - even if the base reaction is limited to a maximum of around 181 C. That is a bit ironic, if true. It all depends on how much one believes Ikegami et al. Obviously, Ikegami is hot fusion carried out at warm temperature instead of cold fusion, and he sees MeV particles - which doesn't happen in cold fusion - so the gain is much higher. That is a semantic distinction of course, but it also differentiates devices like the Farnsworth Fusor from LENR. The Fusor is hot fusion carried out at warm temperatures. In the case of Rossi - a preference for a reaction that was controlled to a low temperature, such at 181 C would explain wet steam and a few other things as being necessary to see the high COP. Who knows? - This is Curt Edstrom's report of his efforts to find a thermal anomaly in Ni-H, notably mentioning Ikegami and liquid lithium. Liquid lithium seems to be a topic of current interest in LENR, due to the major experimental efforts of Ikegami and others over the years - and another aspect of the Swedish connection to LENR. http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/File1.pdf I have the same interpretation of Ikegami's work with a proton beam as does Edstrom. Ikegami finds a massive 10^11 increase in reaction rate of a fairly low energy beam, achieving breakeven condition; but only so long as the lithium is precisely at the melting point. If the temperature is much in excess of this - the rate of reaction falls by a factor of 10,000:1 and is nowhere near breakeven. That need for maintaining a temperature at the melting point of lithium does not make much sense from a physics perspective, but nevertheless this is one interpretation of several extremely well done experiments. The lesson of this finding applied to the dogbone genre, assuming Ikegami is correct - is that this reaction could be adapted IF: 1) LiAl4 is avoided - since the alloy will not release lithium easily. OTOH at its melting point, the same result could take place. 2) Use lithium in a form which will release lithium metal at low temperature (many choices for that including the metal itself) 3) Lithium metal melts at 181 C - so run the reactor at precisely this temperature using temperature feedback from the thermocouple to keep a constant temperature level and sampling many times per second. 4) A proton beam (of natural sort) will appear when protons are accelerated from various hydrides - having found a Rydberg hole equal or greater than 54.4 eV. 5) Notably iron has two such IP levels - and helium one - and since the ash (end product) is a perfect fit for 54.4 eV - this indicates the possibility of positive feedback which needs to be carefully controlled. The main problem with this suggestion is that the reaction should produce two alpha particles, which accelerate at high speed on beryllium-8 fission, which should cause secondary x-ray radiation as they thermalize, which is not seen. However, if helium is detected at all - in the ash of a low-temp-dogbone, then Ikegami could become the new savior of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:Possible advantage of running dogbone type reactor at 181 C
You brought up a subject that has been on my mind recently. It would be better to have an ECAT that operates about half way between the two under discussion. The Hotcat is too hot to handle while the normal ECAT runs a bit too cool. One that operates at 500 to 600 C would be perfect for electricity generation and would not require the exotic materials. Heat transfer between the device and a working fluid would become fairly traditional at the modest temperatures as well. I suppose the main function that would be lost is the future direct conversion of heat into electricity which is likely much more efficient at the higher temperature. As you seem to imply, Rossi never mentions the Hotcat in any of his blog entries other than saying that the replication by Parkhomov is interesting. That might be due to his continuing desire to keep folks from researching more typical ECAT type devices. The work by Parkhomov is showing a great deal of promise and the results of his experiments are beginning to shine light upon the internal processes, at least in the Hotcat design. I suspect that the same basic concepts are acting within the regular ECAT as well. My favorite thermal feedback curve should apply in either type of device so it will be easy to understand when the feedback factor reaches an interesting level. There remains plenty of fight left within the Parkhomov replication for all of us to remain entertained. I look forward to the release of the most recent data. It is going to be exciting to figure out how to keep one of them under adequate control when it is designed to operate with a negative resistance region included. Type 1 is too simple and the COP is too low. Give us a solid type 2 and we can begin our celebration. :-) Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 3:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Possible advantage of running dogbone type reactor at 181 C BTW – one of the mysteries of Ni-H or more precisely, Ni-Li-H - now that a robust high temperature version has appeared, and seems to have been replicated by Parkhomov - is why anyone would be interested in the low temperature version. The low temperature version would be relegated to mundane space heating, as opposed to higher value-added applications like transportation. Yet Rossi himself seems to have abandoned the HT in favor of the original version -- and the infamous blue box, which only produces hot water and wet steam. One answer to this enigma is that Ikegami’s reaction, using liquid lithium and protons in a resonance mode at the lithium phase change - will actually produce a higher COP than the hot version - even if the base reaction is limited to a maximum of around 181 C. That is a bit ironic, if true. It all depends on how much one believes Ikegami et al. Obviously, Ikegami is “hot fusion carried out at warm temperature” instead of cold fusion, and he sees MeV particles – which doesn’t happen in cold fusion - so the gain is much higher. That is a semantic distinction of course, but it also differentiates devices like the Farnsworth Fusor from LENR. The Fusor is hot fusion carried out at warm temperatures”. In the case of Rossi – a preference for a reaction that was controlled to a low temperature, such at 181 C would explain “wet steam” and a few other things as being necessary to see the high COP. Who knows? - This is Curt Edstrom's report of his efforts to find a thermal anomaly in Ni-H, notably mentioning Ikegami and liquid lithium. Liquid lithium seems to be a topic of current interest in LENR, due to the major experimental efforts of Ikegami and others over the years – and another aspect of the “Swedish connection” to LENR. http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/File1.pdf I have the same interpretation of Ikegami’s work with a proton beam as does Edstrom. Ikegami finds a massive 10^11 increase in reaction rate of a fairly low energy beam, achieving breakeven condition; but only so long as the lithium is precisely at the melting point. If the temperature is much in excess of this – the rate of reaction falls by a factor of 10,000:1 and is nowhere near breakeven. That need for maintaining a temperature at the melting point of lithium does not make much sense from a physics perspective, but nevertheless this is one interpretation of several extremely well done experiments. The lesson of this finding applied to the “dogbone genre”, assuming Ikegami is correct – is that this reaction could be adapted IF: 1) LiAl4 is avoided - since the alloy will not release lithium easily. OTOH at its melting point, the same result could take place. 2) Use lithium in a form which will release lithium metal at low temperature (many choices for that including the metal itself) 3) Lithium metal melts at 181 C – so
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR
I am going to re-assemble the pieces of the reactor tube to determine more about the metal film deposited on the inside of the tube. In one shard, it looks to be about 0.0037 in thickness and appears as a cooled, once liquid metal. It is probably a Li-Al alloy. The liquid Li-Al alloy may form a gravity fed river on the bottom of the reactor tube. Reconstruction of the tube will tell us whether this was a gravity fed river or if it was deposited around the complete circumference. Also, we will be having, at minimum, XRF done on both the metal on the alumina, and the sintered Ni rod that was left after the experiment (in combination with SEM views). Another observation is that there is NO evidence of alumina chemical erosion by the Li. There is no evidence yet that this was not a chemical weakening of the tube - it appears to be a simple hot, high pressure failure of the tube. This tube was notably thinner than Parkhomov's tube. Bob Higgins On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:16 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We need to continue to offer interesting ideas such as this one by Bob. I made a careful review of the power input versus temperature curve that just recently was posted in the MFMP blog. It appears that the curve does not have sufficient downward slope tendency to indicate entry into the negative resistance region needed for normal melt down progress. On the other hand, if a sudden threshold is present where the onset of core generated power is extremely swift then an immediate negative slope could materialize at that threshold. This was not seen in Parkhomov's experiment so I need to be convinced that it actually happened at MFMP. Parkhomov's device behaved much as I was expecting and in a manner that suggests that it can be adequately controlled under the correct circumstances. Could it be that the MFMP team made modifications to the basic design that lead to the problem? The connector attached to the ceramic rod should facilitate measurements of the hydrogen pressure and allow plenty of variables to be adjusted. In many ways this appears to be a great idea. But, we also know that something went very wrong with the device at elevated temperatures that did not become apparent with Parkhomov's device. In the first Parkhomov experiment the input power versus temperature curve acted as I was expecting. As the power input increased the slope of that curve came very close to reaching a negative value within the region of interest. The lack of enough clean data points prevented me from determining how close it came, but the fact that the device remained stable with static drive steps proved to me at least that it did not enter into a negative resistance region of operation. This is characteristic of a stable type 1 device. A comparison of the MFMP device and Parkhomov's first experiment shows one obvious difference. Parkhomov's design kept all of the fuel at an elevated temperature where it appears to be treated uniformly, at least to the first order. He used symetry and plenty of cement toward that purpose. Does anyone understand what happens to any metal vapor, or hot gas that finds it way to the cool end of the inner pipe of the MFMP device? I would guess that the metal vapor would condense immediately and be taken out of the hottest environment. Do we know that the loss of these potentially reactive components is not going to effect the behavior of the device? Is that why the MFMP team witnessed the apparent meltdown? Was a built in spoiler allowed to escape by condensing in the cooler region? Perhaps it would be safer to perform a reproduction that is much closer to the original first and then make desired changes in stages. At this point no one knows what is or is not of great importance to the behavior of a Hotcat. Now is the time that we need plenty of new understanding. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 12:47 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR Another idea for the control of the LENR reaction, assuming heat is a driver would be to make a fuel-metal matrix solid instead of the fuel nano powder. This arrangement of a dispersed fuel would allow better control of temperature within any given nano fuel particle. The metal matrix would conduct heat away from the Ni nano fuel particle and allow better control of the fuel temperature as well as the access of the H to the Ni nano particle. Such a fuel--metal matrix (FMM) could be manufactured using powder metallurgy sintering techniques to fuse the metal matrix at a lower melting point than the Ni nano powder, but above the desired LENR reaction temperature. The mixing of the nano Ni and the metal matrix powder could be accomplished in a cryogenic liquid nitrogen mixed to assure a homogenous mix. The
Re: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:19:42 -0500: Hi, [snip] The bang happens at 1057C. This is when LiH starts to decompose. ... and that's precisely the conditions required for Hydrino formation, i.e. atomic H and atomic Li in close proximity. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR
We need to continue to offer interesting ideas such as this one by Bob. I made a careful review of the power input versus temperature curve that just recently was posted in the MFMP blog. It appears that the curve does not have sufficient downward slope tendency to indicate entry into the negative resistance region needed for normal melt down progress. On the other hand, if a sudden threshold is present where the onset of core generated power is extremely swift then an immediate negative slope could materialize at that threshold. This was not seen in Parkhomov's experiment so I need to be convinced that it actually happened at MFMP. Parkhomov's device behaved much as I was expecting and in a manner that suggests that it can be adequately controlled under the correct circumstances. Could it be that the MFMP team made modifications to the basic design that lead to the problem? The connector attached to the ceramic rod should facilitate measurements of the hydrogen pressure and allow plenty of variables to be adjusted. In many ways this appears to be a great idea. But, we also know that something went very wrong with the device at elevated temperatures that did not become apparent with Parkhomov's device. In the first Parkhomov experiment the input power versus temperature curve acted as I was expecting. As the power input increased the slope of that curve came very close to reaching a negative value within the region of interest. The lack of enough clean data points prevented me from determining how close it came, but the fact that the device remained stable with static drive steps proved to me at least that it did not enter into a negative resistance region of operation. This is characteristic of a stable type 1 device. A comparison of the MFMP device and Parkhomov's first experiment shows one obvious difference. Parkhomov's design kept all of the fuel at an elevated temperature where it appears to be treated uniformly, at least to the first order. He used symetry and plenty of cement toward that purpose. Does anyone understand what happens to any metal vapor, or hot gas that finds it way to the cool end of the inner pipe of the MFMP device? I would guess that the metal vapor would condense immediately and be taken out of the hottest environment. Do we know that the loss of these potentially reactive components is not going to effect the behavior of the device? Is that why the MFMP team witnessed the apparent meltdown? Was a built in spoiler allowed to escape by condensing in the cooler region? Perhaps it would be safer to perform a reproduction that is much closer to the original first and then make desired changes in stages. At this point no one knows what is or is not of great importance to the behavior of a Hotcat. Now is the time that we need plenty of new understanding. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 12:47 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR Another idea for the control of the LENR reaction, assuming heat is a driver would be to make a fuel-metal matrix solid instead of the fuel nano powder. This arrangement of a dispersed fuel would allow better control of temperature within any given nano fuel particle. The metal matrix would conduct heat away from the Ni nano fuel particle and allow better control of the fuel temperature as well as the access of the H to the Ni nano particle. Such a fuel--metal matrix (FMM) could be manufactured using powder metallurgy sintering techniques to fuse the metal matrix at a lower melting point than the Ni nano powder, but above the desired LENR reaction temperature. The mixing of the nano Ni and the metal matrix powder could be accomplished in a cryogenic liquid nitrogen mixed to assure a homogenous mix. The nitrogen would boil off after mixing leaving the two powders thoroughly mixed without clumping. 100 micron FMM particles could be created in the sintering to load the reactor. Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 10:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I agree with you Fran that an ideal solution would be to kill the positive feedback gain in some controlled manner. That could likely be done as you are discussing by taking more power from the core than it needs to self sustain. Once this happens the core temperature movement should reverse direction and head lower. The main complication I am concerned about is that there may exist some built in mechanism that allows the present level of core heat generation to continue for a period of time until it resets. I felt that the plateau seen in the Parkhomov report that occurred after the drive coil burned out might fall into that category. Of course if the extraction of excess power were to
Re: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR
Well lay it all out for us. Do that and I will believe. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:57 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:19:42 -0500: Hi, [snip] The bang happens at 1057C. This is when LiH starts to decompose. ... and that's precisely the conditions required for Hydrino formation, i.e. atomic H and atomic Li in close proximity. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Stanford engineers help describe key mechanism in energy and information storage
(Question - are they studying systems which are too small to produce a measurable anomalous heat event if one were to happen? ) Stanford engineers help describe key mechanism in energy and information storage http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/battery-palladium-dionne-091114.html
[Vo]:Working on possible error in my paper on Mizuno
I may have discovered an error in the paper I wrote on Mizuno. It may be serious enough to invalidate the results. This goes back to what I wrote here on January 21 in response to David Roberson: How do you explain the fact that the temperature in the vicinity of the palladium wire drops very quickly after the pulse? I noticed that. It will take more calibrations to sort out what is going on there. I do not fully trust that thermocouple. . . . I would like to see what's going on in the counter-electrode which is also Pd. I do not want to specify what I have in mind because I am still working on it. I may discover I am getting all upset about nothing. Give me another week or so to sort it out. I will publish full details either way, even if it turns out to be a false alarm. I mention this here just in case Dave or someone else discovers the problem and publishes before I do. (Assuming there is a problem.) To be honest, I am posting this message now mainly because I do not wish to be accused of covering up a serious mistake in my own work. You might call this a claim of negative priority. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: . In a related article, the same group shows that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate at at temperatures that were present in the universe's epochs. That results in what appears to be the Big Bang from our vantage point. That is when we look back in time to the 2.2 degree kelvin cosmological background maybe what we are looking at are the vast reaches of a BEC of gravitons. I say the BEC was not one containing Gravitons but instead Polaritons. During the time of radiation when light and matter combined into high energy polaritons that then created a Bosenova as seen in the DGT experiments. This is where inflation came from. No gravidity waves will be detected now because early expansion of the universe was cause by quantum mechanics and not gravity. This is the LENR theory of creation. Would not that be the most interesting and profound model of cosmology, if the Big Bang was in actuality the collapse of a massive N=100E100 BEC wave function or Bosenove and all of the stuff the streamed out of the thing where the localizations of collapsing waves for N100E100 units. That sort of makes the Idea of a Multi-verse just seem ordinary.
[Vo]:Possible advantage of running dogbone type reactor at 181 C
This is Curt Edstrom's report of his efforts to find a thermal anomaly in Ni-H, notably mentioning Ikegami and liquid lithium. Liquid lithium seems to be a topic of current interest in LENR, due to the major experimental efforts of Ikegami and others over the years - and another aspect of the Swedish connection to LENR. http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/File1.pdf I have the same interpretation of Ikegami's work with a proton beam as does Edstrom. Ikegami finds a massive 10^11 increase in reaction rate of a fairly low energy beam, achieving breakeven condition; but only so long as the lithium is precisely at the melting point. If the temperature is much in excess of this - the rate of reaction falls by a factor of 10,000:1 and is nowhere near breakeven. That need for maintaining a temperature at the melting point of lithium does not make much sense from a physics perspective, but nevertheless this is one interpretation of several extremely well done experiments. The lesson of this finding applied to the dogbone genre, assuming Ikegami is correct - is that this reaction could be adapted IF: 1) LiAl4 is avoided - since the alloy will not release lithium easily. OTOH at its melting point, the same result could take place. 2) Use lithium in a form which will release lithium metal at low temperature (many choices for that including the metal itself) 3) Lithium metal melts at 181 C - so run the reactor at precisely this temperature using temperature feedback from the thermocouple to keep a constant temperature level and sampling many times per second. 4) A proton beam (of natural sort) will appear when protons are accelerated from various hydrides - having found a Rydberg hole equal or greater than 54.4 eV. 5) Notably iron has two such IP levels - and helium one - and since the ash (end product) is a perfect fit for 54.4 eV - this indicates the possibility of positive feedback which needs to be carefully controlled. The main problem with this suggestion is that the reaction should produce two alpha particles, which accelerate at high speed on beryllium-8 fission, which should cause secondary x-ray radiation as they thermalize, which is not seen. However, if helium is detected at all - in the ash of a low-temp-dogbone, then Ikegami could become the new savior of LENR.
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR
Zircconium metal may be a good getter of H at around 950 degrees F. If it were incorporated into the Alumina reactor vessel in the outer portion it very well may create a concentration gradient for H to draw it out through the alumina. Zr + H is an exothermic reaction I believe and therefore this added heat would allow lower input heat at the center of the reactor. Good evaluation of the temperature profile would be necessary in order to understand what was happening. However the concentration of Zr could be controlled to reduce or increase the gettering effect for the H to prevent an over abundance and a runaway reaction. It could work much like a burnable poison in a fission reactor to limit neutron flux and fission reactions. Another scheme could be to include a Zr tube cooled to about 950 degrees F at the center of the reactor. It could also work to extract heat from the reaction of the fuel and thereby limit the reaction rate. Another advanced idea would be to add the fuel powder into a solid matrix of a metal conductor that does not melt at the reaction temperature to provide a good heat transfer mechanism to hold the temperature down. However a metal vapor may also work as a good heat transfer agent to hold the temperature down. Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail From: Axil Axil Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:36 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com The way Lithium hydride give off or absorbs Hydrogen is a function of the pressure of hydrogen that LiH is under . High enough pressure will get LiH to perform as you want at 1057. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:05 AM, hohlr...@gmail.com hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Pity we can't identify a moderator which begins consuming or absorbing H at 1057. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
Re: [Vo]:No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
Actually the new theory does explain the acceleration we are seeing. What these people have done is to apply a correction to the way one measure the shortest distance between to points on a curve. They quantum trajectories (first investigate by David Bohm) instead of classical geodesics. They apply the Bohmian trajectories to the Raychaudhuri equation and then derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe. The end result is that it removes the singularity that we call the Big Bang! In a way, it creates a cosmological constant that eliminates the need dark energy and explains the accelerating Universe we see. With the removal of the Big Bang, the Universe never had a beginning, it just appeared. In a related article, the same group shows that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate at at temperatures that were present in the universe's epochs. That results in what appears to be the Big Bang from our vantage point. That is when we look back in time to the 2.2 degree kelvin cosmological background maybe what we are looking at are the vast reaches of a BEC of gravitons. The problem with cosmology is just when you think you understand, someone comes along with a new idea showing that you don't understand anything. Cheers.
[Vo]:about Hot Cat replication, advises received.
See please: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/02/lenr-complexity-hides-and-bites.html Parkhomov returns on Feb 24. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR
Another idea for the control of the LENR reaction, assuming heat is a driver would be to make a fuel-metal matrix solid instead of the fuel nano powder. This arrangement of a dispersed fuel would allow better control of temperature within any given nano fuel particle. The metal matrix would conduct heat away from the Ni nano fuel particle and allow better control of the fuel temperature as well as the access of the H to the Ni nano particle. Such a fuel--metal matrix (FMM) could be manufactured using powder metallurgy sintering techniques to fuse the metal matrix at a lower melting point than the Ni nano powder, but above the desired LENR reaction temperature. The mixing of the nano Ni and the metal matrix powder could be accomplished in a cryogenic liquid nitrogen mixed to assure a homogenous mix. The nitrogen would boil off after mixing leaving the two powders thoroughly mixed without clumping. 100 micron FMM particles could be created in the sintering to load the reactor. Bob Cook Sent from Windows Mail From: David Roberson Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 10:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I agree with you Fran that an ideal solution would be to kill the positive feedback gain in some controlled manner. That could likely be done as you are discussing by taking more power from the core than it needs to self sustain. Once this happens the core temperature movement should reverse direction and head lower. The main complication I am concerned about is that there may exist some built in mechanism that allows the present level of core heat generation to continue for a period of time until it resets. I felt that the plateau seen in the Parkhomov report that occurred after the drive coil burned out might fall into that category. Of course if the extraction of excess power were to continue throughout that entire period of time then it should not be such a problem. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 6:30 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR The best spoiler may be variable heat sinking that takes more energy away as reaction become more robust to throttle it back below the threshold – then perhaps the drive pwm could push it back above on a duty factor basis. IMHO the dynamic thermal loading may become more important than the drive for “growing” the reaction OU once the threshold is breached Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR That seems like a good quote to add Mats. I have a strong suspicion that you will have several more to add in the next few months as people experiment with these latest devices. There is little doubt that many are going to melt down as the fuel within them is adjusted. It will also be interesting to observe how they behave when additional insulation is added to restrict the heat flowing outwards. There is going to be a great deal of trading off of parameters when people attempt to reduce the input power yet maintain adequate output power and stability. Rossi may have done a lot of the work for us already as he modified his devices to make them marketable. I hope that the fuel can also be adjusted to assist in the process. We need some form of reversible spoiler that applies brakes to the heat generation process once the temperature exceeds a designed set point. Dave -Original Message- From: Lewan Mats mats.le...@nyteknik.se To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 3:46 am Subject: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR I could add this quote from my book, describing what Giuseppe Levi told me about experiments with the Hotcat back in 2012, when the device was destroyed by thermal run-away. That’s two and a half years ago. “When they disassembled the reactor they found that the ceramic shield containing the reactor had melted, and it should withstand up to 2,700 degrees Celsius. The steel tube containing the fuel had a large hole in it and Levi saw on the edges of the hole that it had not melted—it must have been so hot that the steel boiled or burned up, indicating a temperature around 3,000 degrees.” (An Impossible Invention, chapter 19). Mats www.animpossibleinvention.com Från: Lewan Mats [mailto:mats.le...@nyteknik.se] Skickat: den 10 februari 2015 09:25 Till: vortex-l@eskimo.com Ämne: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR David, It’s always interesting to read your analyses of the energetic and thermal dynamics of LENR systems. They deserve more attention. I find your model with three types of systems convincing, and I think it is obvious from what Rossi
