Bob, I guess before I had presumed that the TC was on the inside based what I saw in the picture and his previous design. In the updated report, it is noted that "*The thermocouple is fixed on surface of tube with fuel in the middle of the tube." *I interpreted that to mean it was "on the outside surface," but I guess it could also mean "affixed to the inner surface."
Jack On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jack-- > > I do not fully understand your last comment. Your indicate that the t/c > was affixed to the outside of the alumina containment vessel "cell". > However, the ECW indicates that Parkhomove controlled the reactor at a > target of 1200 degrees C. The inference from the ECW report is that a t/c > is installed inside the alumina tube on its inside diameter and it was this > t/c used to control the electrical input power and the reaction > temperature. > > I assume without an internal t/c it would not be possible to accurately > control the internal temperature to 1200 C. > > Can you clarify the placement of the thermocouples in the Parkhomov test > per your understanding? > > Bob Cook > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Saturday, March 21, 2015 5:20 PM > *Subject:* [Vo]:Parkhomov - Reaction Restarts from Cold > > Parkhomov has addressed the primary concern that I had with his experiment > (power levels required to bring it up to the temperature needed to initiate > the reaction). Additionally, he confirms something that Rossi recently > stated about it being possible to restart the reaction after it has cooled. > And it is reported that he affixed a thermocouple on the outside of the > cell, alleviating that concern. > > > http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/21/mfmp-reports-parkhomov-breakthrough-90-minutes-of-excess-heat/ > > On ECW, it is noted: > > "Dr. Parkhomov reports that the target temperature of 1200ºC in the > fuelled reactor was achieved by the time the electric power had reached > around 600 W (in contrast to 1070 W needed to reach 1200ºC in the dummy). > Then within an hour, the regulator had decreased the input power to just > 330 W to maintain the same 1200ºC. Approximately, this has been the power > required to during the whole operation of the reactor. > he thermocouple is fixed on surface of tube with fuel in the middle of the > tube. > Operation of the reactor was interrupted due to a heater burn-out at 10:50 > on March 20 (Moscow time). Fortunately though, the tube with fuel wasn’t > damaged. > When a replacement heater was used, the reactor RESTARTED!! at 11:10 on > March 21 and works still. > This is the first independent report of high power LENR being able to be > cooled down and re-started. > It is difficult to grasp the significance of this information. > Dr. Parkhomov, Thankyou." > > > Possibly, this also addresses Dave's concern based on his models, but > he'll have to weigh in on that. > > As long as the 600W wasn't more than was needed to reach 1070C, then you > get a minimum COP of 1.8 (treating the experimental cell heat up power as > its own control). I hate to nitpick, but it would be good to know what the > max temperature would be if using 500W (e.g., 950C). The good thing is > that the reaction will restart. He can turn it off again, and run 500W > until it levels out at a maximum temperature. > > This is getting very close to ruling out alternative explanations. > >
