The latest report from the Alexander Parkhomov reactor testing contains one very important bit of information that should not be overlooked. I had determined that his original device without the insulating blanket was operating as a type 1 positive feedback thermal system. A device operating in that mode is stable regardless of the amount of input drive applied to it in the form of electrical heating.
I have simulations that demonstrate this behavior and so far I have not seen data or experimental reports which indicate operation beyond that level of performance. The Hotcat testing by the independent scientists appeared to be restricted to this same category, but was not verified since the testers did not attempt to increase the heater drive power carefully. Had they done this, we would be able to see whether or not operation at any chosen surface temperature was stable. A type 1 system will operate in that manner while a type 2 or 3 will not. Both of these higher types contain a negative resistance region of operation that will not allow the temperature to remain constant within them. Also, as a transition is made between the type 1 and type 2 operation, less drive power is required in order to obtain a particular operating temperature point. And, of course what we refer to as the COP becomes much larger since the temperature snaps upwards once that negative resistance region is entered. A consequence of operation of a type 2 or type 3 system is that thermal run away can be initiated easily which leads to self destruction which was evident within the report. If Parkhomov had very carefully increased the insulation effectiveness, he might have kept the device from self destruction, but this may not be easy to achieve. The ideal operation would be a type 2 one where the input is able to control the output for operation outside the negative resistance region. With a type 2 device, the temperature of the unit will return to ambient once the drive is removed. A type 3 system will not return to ambient even when the drive is totally removed. Unfortunately, the dividing line between the amount of feedback required to establish the desired type 2 versus a type 3 is very sharp. This latest demonstration shows that problem very well. Rossi must be carefully adjusting the geometry of his device if he is actually operating it within a type 2 mode. It is important to be able to sink ever greater amounts of heat at a rapidly increasing rate at a temperature below the damage level. Since the internal heat generating mechanism increases efficiency rapidly as the temperature is increased it is not a simple task to overpower that heat source. Anyone that still insists that LENR in the form of a Hotcat type of device is not real is missing the obvious evidence. Now, there is no doubt remaining that we are experiencing a very real phenomena provided the reported data is honest and there is no indication of any foul play. Dave
