Remember by using far less input power, a periodic input power cycle with a duty cycle of 25 percent will multiply the 2.5 COP that the Russian system is producing by a factor of 4 or COP equal to 10.
The Russian system ran for 7 minutes without power. That is great for COP. On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:47 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 * > > >
