At 03:15 PM 5/31/2006 -0400, you wrote:
Steven Krivit wrote:
According to three of my sources in the hot fusion field, (the spokesman
for PPPL, a plasma physicist at General Atomics, and someone working in
the public relations office of EFDA-JET) none, repeat, none have produced
excess energy.
Greatest Q= 0.67 was at JET
I suppose it depends upon how you define excess energy. In all cases the
reactor is hotter than it would be if there were no reaction going on
inside it. Q=0.67 indicates that the heat from the nuclear reaction is 67%
of the input power. Evidently they are defining excess as "nuclear power
output exceeding total input electric power." By that standard, a cold
fusion cell producing 30% of input power has a Q=0.3 and no excess, but we
still call it "excess heat." Few cold fusion cells have had a Q>1.0. It
would be easy to increase the Q by reducing input power, using
conventional electrochemical techniques such as moving the anode and
cathode closer together. People have not done that because there is no point.
A Q-value is defined as, "The amount of energy released in a nuclear
reaction," by the way.
- Jed
This is incorrect on several levels.
First, assuming Q is the ratio of heat released to the input energy, if
there is less than 100% heat
for input energy as (V*I)*t (or power * time), then there is NO (zero, zed,
nada) excess heat.
Our open MIT demonstration at ICCF10 had Q = ~2.7 (or an output of about
270% of the input energy),
and this was shown during the week of the open demonstration to be
dependent upon the precise system operation
within the optimal operating point manifold.
Second, changing electrode dimensions will not necessarily change
Q. The way to change Q is by the methods of
cold fusion engineering, several of which we have discussed in several
papers including
Swartz. M., G. Verner, "Excess Heat from Low Electrical Conductivity Heavy
Water Spiral-Wound Pd/D2O/Pt
and Pd/D2O-PdCl2/Pt Devices", Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,
Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds.
Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb, World Scientific Publishing, NJ,
ISBN 981-256-564-6, Pages 29-44 (2006) and
Swartz. M., "Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated
Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes
in D2O", ICCF-10 (Camb. MA), Proceedings of ICCF-10, (2003) , and
Swartz. M., "The Impact of Heavy Water (D2O) on Nickel-Light Water Cold
Fusion Systems",
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion
(Condensed Matter Nuclear Science),
Beijing, China, Xing Z. Li, pages 335-342. May (2002), and
Swartz. M., "Control of Low Energy Nuclear Systems through Loading and
Optimal Operating Points",
ANS/ 2000 International Winter Meeting, Nov. 12-17, 2000, Washington,
D.C. (2000), and
Swartz. M.., "Patterns of Failure in Cold Fusion Experiments", Proceedings
of the 33RD Intersociety
Engineering Conference on Energy Conversion, IECEC-98-I229, Colorado
Springs, CO, August 2-6, (1998), and
Swartz. M., "Consistency of the Biphasic Nature of Excess Enthalpy in Solid
State Anomalous
Phenomena with the Quasi-1-Dimensional Model of Isotope Loading into a
Material", Fusion Technology, 31, 63-74 (1997), and
Swartz, M., "Isotopic Fuel Loading Coupled To Reactions At An Electrode",
Fusion Technology, 26, 4T, 74-77 (1994), and
Swartz, M., "Quasi-One-Dimensional Model of Electrochemical Loading of
Isotopic Fuel into a Metal",
Fusion Technology, 22, 2, 296-300 (1992), and of course the recent
presentation, and the recent papers including
Swartz, M., G. Verner, "Dual Ohmic Controls Improve Understanding of "Heat
after Death"
Transactions, American Nuclear Society, vol. 93, ISSN 93 1-988, 891-892 (2005).
Hope that clarifies and helps, because the future of successful cold
fusion systems will be controlled by engineering.
Dr. Mitchell Swartz
