A lot depends upon the feedback type, whether 1,2, or 3 which is very design related. A type 1 system is limited in COP to a significant extent according to my simulations. It will be difficult to achieve a net of 6 at best without enough thermal feedback. It is a fine line between a type 2 and type 3 design. If he is able to achieve a consistent type 2 mode then he can run it in either a constant or pulsed manner that you speak of with fine performance.
Unfortunately, if it creeps into a type 3 device, then he will loose control of it to a great extent. Whether he uses pulses or constant drive the device will continue to heat up until it self destructs or, if properly designed, reaches a temperature where it latches. This may not be such a bad thing if it latches below the level at which it destructs since the COP will be infinite until some external force comes into play to begin a cool down trajectory. The work being performed by Parkhomov at this time is going to be valuable to all of us in many ways. Rossi must have already explored these modes of operation and is keeping that information secret. I suspect that he intentionally gave the independant testers a type 1 system that demonstrates a modest COP just to prove that his Hotcats work, but not to reveal how well they can be adjusted to work with enough fuel. Remember, the more fuel you insert, the greater will be the positive thermal feedback. I would like to see Parkhomov add a small amount of insulation in steps to see how the device works over temperature at each level of insulation. That should reveal the transition between type 1 and type 2 operation. I am hoping that it will be possible to obtain a true type 2 device instead of finding that the geometry is not capable of preventing a direct change from type 1 to type 3. To achieve a solid type 2 Hotcat, it is necessary for the heat being radiated, convected, and conducted away to overpower the heat being generated before device destruction occurs. And, to make that turnaround in power extraction fast enough may be more difficult than I can hope for. Rossi may yet have plenty of tricks up his sleeve. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Feb 1, 2015 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Parkhomov Reactro Type 2 or 3 Thermal Feedback System with Insulation The Lugano replicators want to run their reactors with constant power input because this is what the Lugano testers had done. The first third party test used periodic input power, the natural mode of Hot-Cat input power drive. The Russian might not get into the burnup condition if he uses periodic input power application. On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:17 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: 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
