Bob, Do you need to take into consideration the fact that a small gap exists between the outer furnace and the inner core tube? Is the contact good enough to limit the thermal resistance of this space? Any heat power flowing through that path would cause a rise in temperature of the core. I bring this up just as to point out possible differences between the dog bone and the other experiments.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Higgins <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. The dogbone is essentially a tube furnace. The fuel is placed in a separate alumina tube with one end molded closed and having a 4mm bore (like Lugano) that is sealed with an alumina plug. This tube with the fuel is called the reaction tube and is about 1/4" in diameter and 8" long. The reaction tube slides inside the dogbone "tube furnace". There is no hydrogen diffusing to cooler regions. The whole reaction tube is about the same temperature through its radius. There are no steep temp gradients as far as the fuel is concerned. The reaction tube can be removed, replaced with a dummy, or replaced with another reaction tube with a different experimental fuel. On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: Dave and others-- The temperature gradient in the dog bone--center to outside-- should make a difference in the concentration of hydrogen and other volatile/mobile species like lithium. They would tend to condense in the outer parts of the dog bone. If Ni is volatile like Higgins thinks it may be, then its availability for reaction may be curtailed in a steep temperature gradient. Also if thermal agitation of the matrix is important at certain resonant frequencies, steep temperature gradients would tend to limit the volume of the matrix available for a reaction to be initiated. If there is such a entity as a thermal proton (like thermal neutrons in a fission reactor) then the temperature may be important in establishing the interaction cross section cross section of the proton with whatever it reacts. Rossi's negative temperature coeff. may reflect this effect of the changing frequency of the protons as a function of their temperature or kinetic energy. Li atoms may also be involved with changing frequencies as a function of the local temperature. (In the case of a neutron in a reactor, the kinetic energy of the neutron is what changes it interaction cross section with Uranium.) Bob Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Jed, The setup used by MFMP uses the surrounding room temperature as the sink for heat generated within their device. That should appear cooler to the actual heat generating device than a water cooled metal container which is at approximately 100 C. I would also believe that convection currents would be more effective in open air rather than confined to a constant 100 degree temperature enclosure. I am assuming that there is little direct conduction between the active device and the metal container in Parkhomov's experiment. Are you aware of any attempt to conduct heat directly away? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Dec 31, 2014 10:06 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The MFMP replication effort live on youtube. Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: Based on analysis of Lugano and Parkhomov work, excess heat begins at about 950C. The MFMP dogbone core was measured to be over 1200C and no excess heat was found. As I said, I have a feeling that is too hot. I think the Lugano temperature may have been lower than they thought. I trust Parkhomov's temperatures, which I think were lower. Parkhomov's reactor loses heat rapidly with water cooling. Could it be that the temperature difference between the inside and the cooler outside plays a role? This is mere speculation. - Jed
