For the weekend inventor, high efficiency induction heating(93 %) is expensive. The cheap equipment is energy wasteful(40 %). But this efficiency question is only important in a COTS product.
For the weekend experimenter, the energy wasted by the electronics can be ignored if the experiment is setup correctly. The coil must be insulated with a non conductive material like spray foam or to counter high heat from the reactor... fiberglass to capture all the heat that comes out of the reactor. The calibration step will account for the heat produced by the coil itself and the heat produced by induction of the reactor structure. The heat produced by the electronic drivers are shielded by the heat isolation of the fiberglass insolation. I think that this approach is the most cost effective way to run a dogbone LENR test. heater wire breakage is expensive. I would like to see the alumina tube replaced by zirconium or even better a zirconia tube. On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > As Peter laments, there are two extremes in the recent LENR news. > > Thomas Clark’s report lucidly states exactly what many of us having been > saying for months about the flawed Lugano report. > > The good news in the provocative site: > > *http://tet.in.ua/index.php/en/* <http://tet.in.ua/index.php/en/> > > Which is the Laboratory of Experimental Physics — also known as “TET” — > in Ukraine and also in Moscow. Curiously, it combines Russian and > Ukrainian efforts towards alternative energy. > > The curious part of this partnership goes all the way back to Chernobyl – > another joint effort that resulted in catastrophe, but which result could > be rectified to a large extent if this new effort is successful. > > The induction coil seems to offer the most promise to me – especially when > the copper coil can double as the calorimeter - in the way Jack Cole has > proposed. The Ukrainians seem to be doing exactly the same thing with the > pictured coil which is covered in furnace cement. The problem with this > approach, as Jack has documented on his blog, is capturing a larger > proportion of the input energy than is normally possible with an > induction setup. > > I believe this can be done. I have recently seen a report showing that > induction cooktops, when properly designed at the best resonance level > can actually apply more net energy from the grid to a cooking utensil than > direct contact with the traditional resistive heating element – which is > a surprise since we assume the latter is nearly 100% (it isn’t). > > Jones > >
