Mats, Thanks. I can imagine that Rossi performed a large balancing act as he adjusted the variables in order to achieve a well working design. I hope that he has been able to construct a type 2 structure that achieves excellent levels of COP and stable operation at the same time. It likely will not be a simple task to arrive at a geometry where the power extracted from the device increases quickly enough as the temperature rises to reach that goal.
Has Parkhomov spoken about the behavior of his earliest experimental systems? The reason I ask is that the slope of the power in versus temperature curve for his device is very close to becoming negative but remains positive at the three operating points he reported. This appears to be extremely good fortune and suggests that he may have arrived at that level of performance by carefully adjusting the amount of fuel included. Perhaps he built several units that either did not generate enough heat or melted down before he obtained the best balance. If in fact he experimented to find the best case then it was inevitable that the application of significant additional insulation would lead to melt down. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Lewan Mats <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 3:27 am Subject: SV: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR David, It’s always interesting to read your analyses of the energetic and thermal dynamics of LENR systems. They deserve more attention. I find your model with three types of systems convincing, and I think it is obvious from what Rossi told me many times about his experiments that the run-away tendency is one of the main issues when trying to achieve and sustain a controlled LENR reaction. I also believe that the amount of time that Rossi has put into trial and error is an indication of the experience you need to gain in order to get the reaction under control, although it seems that Parkhomov has made significant progress. Yet, arriving at sustaining a reaction for days and weeks, with long periods in self-sustained mode, is probably a tough challenge. Mats www.animpossibleinvention.com Från: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Skickat: den 10 februari 2015 02:47 Till: [email protected] Ämne: [Vo]:Explosion May Be Out of Control LENR I just read the latest facebook entry by the MFMP group and suspect that they witnessed an explosion due to a thermal runaway event. The latest Parkhomov experiment appears to indicate the same out of control system problem. We know that the earlier Parkhomov device was stable but appeared to be on the verge of entering a negative resistance type of operation. The slope of power input versus temperature for that original system was very close to zero but slightly positive according to the data he reported. Although I would like to have a much more extensive collection of points defining power input versus temperature, I am having to assume that the curve connecting the three given points is relatively smooth. This is not too much of a stretch since the entire temperature range over which the points are taken is very limited. When Parkhomov increased the insulation surrounding his device for the recent testing, he effectively increased the positive feedback gain by a large amount. With the insulation the amount of input power required to obtain the same temperature readings was substantially reduced. It seems reasonable to assume that the core generates the same amount of heat power when subjected to the same temperature. If this is true then the ratio of internally generated power to input power must become larger at any temperature where internal heat is being generated. Since the original product was very close to becoming unstable, with the increase in gain the latest experiment most likely resulted in a situation where the positive feedback gain exceeded unity. This is just another way of saying that a negative resistance region is now present. Of course, once the input power pushes the temperature into that region the device will self sustain all the way to thermal destruction. This increase in temperature can be extremely rapid since it is of an exponential nature. With this thought under consideration I strongly suspect that the MFMP team observed the same sequence of events. Until they increased the drive level to the threshold of destruction everything would have appeared fairly normal. The main difference I would expect is for the temperature to rise faster than expected had a dummy system been driven in a like manner. Unfortunately, it might be a fine line between a stable input drive power and the initiation of run away. My take on the debris following the explosion is that there is evidence of an extreme heating event having taken place. The spheres of molten metal along with the other indications is pretty strong evidence. I do not believe that the time frame during which the heat is emitted is necessarily very long in duration. An exponential release can occur very quickly and the heat is confined by the structure as the damage is being done. To prevent this from occurring too often, I would recommend that the amount of fuel be reduced significantly for the earlier testing. A curve can then be constructed under stable conditions which will act as a guide to indicate how much fuel can be inserted before the thermal run away condition can begin. Perhaps the fact that MFMP guys and Parkhomov did such a good job of sealing in the hydrogen under a large amount of pressure is the root cause of the issue. There remains many unanswered questions, but the important fact is that we may now be witnessing an excellent example of LENR. Dave
