Thanks Bob, Now I see that a closer look at the glow tube construction is going to be required reading. Your explanation should help all of us to better understand why the relatively low reading at his thermocouple chosen location is reasonable. Perhaps he should consider picking a location that is more reflective of the actual core temperature if he wants to rely upon the PID controller to hold core power constant.
If the location is not carefully chosen, then the control will tend to keep the overall power constant instead of the contribution due to the core alone. There would then exist a risk of core melting that is not controlled adequately by the PID controller. I would suggest that you guys find a way to maintain a more direct contact to the core heat generation process. The best solution may be to go back and add the control thermocouple to some core internal location. If that is done, it should become possible to detect core power generation by monitoring a drop in temperature of the outside surface of the largest cylinder. I am assuming that a finite value of thermal resistance exists between the core and the heating coil prior to a careful review of the structure. Or, is it possible to cover the present thermocouple in a manner that allows it to more accurately reflect the core temperature? Perhaps that heat escape route by radiation, etc. can be prevented by adding a section of material or possibly insulation. It concerns me that 300 C exists between the measured and the assumed real value of core temperature. If that difference can be lowered to 50 or even 100 C, I would have more confidence in the results. Please do not take my suggestions as being negative toward what you guys are doing. I appreciate the major amount of effort that is being applied by all of those concerned. I am merely offering some ideas for your consideration that might help us to uncover the LENR activity. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Higgins <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later Finlay asked a similar question. The answer is in the thermal model for the mounted area of the thermocouple. The thermal model for Alan's thermocouple, mounted on the reactor tube, is different than Parkhomov's. Alan's thermocouple is in a center gap in the heater coil turns, the turns being wound directly onto the reactor tube. He has his heater coil portions on each side of center covered with a thick alumina tube, but the center area where the thermocouple is mounted is not covered (not insulated). Thus, there is thermal load to the environment (radiation, convection) from the area of the thermocouple that causes the thermocouple to read lower than the core temperature or even the surface temperature of the reactor tube right under the coils. Fortunately, Alan measured this differential in temperature between where he had the thermocouple on the reactor tube and the core temperature. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:04 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Bob, You appear to be making the assumption that excess power is being generated within the core. Why would you expect the temperature inside the core to be above the outside of the core unless some extra power is being produced? Why 1200 C when the outside is at only 900 C? Something does not seem to add up in that calibration run, or perhaps I just missed a fine point that you can help explain. Thanks. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Higgins < [email protected]> To: vortex-l < [email protected]> Sent: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 12:41 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: replication results coming later There were a couple of reasons. First, Alan was at near maximum power when the reactor tube outside temperature was 900C and the internal core temperature was over 1200C. The Kanthal A1 heater wire would have burned out by the time the reactor tube temperature could have been driven to 1200C, even if Alan could drive it that hard. Parkhomov had a different differential between his tube OD and his core temperature than Alan did. Alan measured his differential curve. If he had gone to 1200C at the reactor tube OD, the heater wire would have been at or above its melting temperature and the core may have been nearly 1400C. It was just not practical. If Alan had the same insulating system as Parkhomov, his reactor tube may have read nearly 1200C while his core was at 1200C. Another reason was the cool-down cycle time. Alan was uncomfortable leaving the system to run un-monitored, so he had to shut it down in a controlled cycle before he fell asleep. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: Bob, why didn't you continue with until 1200 outside, I thought you were following Hank's advice. But, suddenly, the experiment stopped. Can you explain that?
