Jones, It would be relatively easy to set a boil off calorimeter on top of one of those induction heating plates. That would certainly be a lot easier than anything else we've tried.
Jack On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 7:55 PM Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave, > > > > Although I agree with what you say in principle about reflected resistance > and leakage flux, the advantages of an efficient, inexpensive inductive > power source (the cooktop) which is easily adaptable to boil-off > calorimetry is so impressive that it could swing the decision the other > way. This is especially true if there is no resistive heater wire to fail. > > > > The problem of the parallel resistive load, or lack thereof - can be > elegantly met by incorporating that load into the design of the calorimeter > itself. > > > > IOW – there will be adequate proof (for all but the most entrenched > skeptics) if it can be shown that thermal gain exist by a comparison of > mass loss of evaporation of water, say 100 grams out of 1 kg - in two > comparative ways – one way using water only as the load, using the full > area coverage of the primary coil and with no leakage – against the other > way, which is using the same amount of water, same general geometry but > with an added ampule of fuel (modestly insulated) which is optimized for > this type of power. > > > > I am striving to find a simple baseline comparative test, not necessarily > side-by-side, but “sequentially comparative” … yet with the added > capability of calculating enthalpy via the evaporated mass against the > known standard… AND… using also using grid power at the wall as input, in > both cases, so that there is no whining over power analysis. > > > > There will be a 16% overhead, more likely 20% in practice, so the minimum > gain which will be acceptable is COP of about 1.24. I am convinced that > this level of gain is possible at moderate fuel temperature based on the > Thermacore papers, more so than anything later. > > > > *From:* David Roberson > > > > Getting the power into the load is the key to making one of these devices > operate efficiently. If a small amount of the magnetic flux from the drive > coil intercepts the fuel pellet then the reflected resistance appearing > across the resonate load is going to be quite large. The voltage swing is > limited by the devices and the supply rail so it is important to get the > parallel resistive component of the reflected load small enough. > > I believe that a design where the drive coil is shaped like a cylinder > with the fuel inside offers the best opportunity to obtain adequate drive. > This seems to be where the replicators are going at the moment. A flat > drive coil would not be the best due to it having plenty of leakage > magnetic flux missing the fuel pellet. This then leads to a solid state > device load that has a resistive component that is too large in parallel. > > Eddy currents are the mechanism used to absorb the power. The currents > have both a resistive and inductive component which are reflected into the > primary circuit. The inductive part tends to change the resonate frequency > of the drive system. The resistive part becomes the load into which power > is absorbed. > > An interesting issue is going to be the penetration depth of the magnetic > flux into the fuel. All of the material above a certain region of the fuel > will act like a partial shield depending upon its conductivity. The > better the conductivity, the less penetration into the pellet. This should > show itself as variation in the heat deposited into the fuel pellet > depending upon the shape. A flat pellet would tend to be more evenly > heated than a taller one. > > I am confident that a good design can be obtained provided the fuel > conductivity does not change too greatly as it is consumed in the reactor. > It is going to take some adjusting of shape and frequency in order to make > a well designed system. Also, the resonate drive frequency will likely > need to be modified slowly with time. > > Dave > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Jun 13, 2015 4:05 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly > > Eddy currents work to produce heat in a metal or an metal oxide insolator > on the micro level which still exists in a metal or oxide over it curie > point. > > > > > http://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/3451119/ACFAA5C.pdf/98899692-8a69-446d-ac9a-38b8fab3a160 > > > > Hysteresis goes away beyond the Curie point, but eddy currents are still > avalible for a skin effect. > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bob, There is a pretty good article on Wiki for induction cookers, but a > look at the patents turns up more than meets the eye in a superficial > account. > > > > The obvious part is that there is a Litz wire copper pancake coil inside > the cooktop, driven by silicon to low to mid kilohertz range – 25-75 kHz. > The coil has maybe 100 turns, while the bottom of the cooking pot > effectively forms a single shorted turn. According to Wiki, this forms a > virtual transformer which steps down the voltage and steps up the current > so that the shorted current becomes heat - localized in high-resistance > steel - while the driving coil stays cool. That is fairly straightforward > but some designs are more efficient than others. > > > > So… there is more to the story than simply RF induction. US6956188 to GE > describes an integrated capacitor, which must be resonant - and other > patents have clues about special frequencies. JL Naudin and others have > claimed that they can actually convert one of these devices into a gainful > power source, using a Tesla bifilar pancake - but his logic is flawed and > data is misinterpreted. See “Gegene” > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OlLRrTSvYU > > > > Anyway, one of these cooktops could probably be converted to drive a LENR > experiment with efficient power … including heat plus whatever advantages > can be derived from RF waves (in the sense of Dardik “superwaves”) but on > paper it should only work up to the Curie point of nickel which is low. > > > > That is what is so interesting about the Ukrainian device – apparently > titanium hydride works to high temperature, even though it is not > ferromagnetic and no nickel is used. It would be nice to have more detail > on their design. Are they burning hydrogen and titanium in air? > > > > *From:* Bob Cook > > > > Jones-- > > > > You are correct about induction heating. My youngest daughter recently > bought a new induction heating stove. Nothing gets hot but the bottom of > the pot, and the water in the pot starts boiling almost immediately. There > is very fast and efficient energy transfer to the inside bottom of the > pot. Its not clear what the coupling is. It must be some sort of > resonance coupling IMHO. > > > > I can imagine three mechanisms: > > > > 1. Nuclear magnetic resonance, > > > > 2. Magnetic resonance from an induction coil with electrons in a conductor, > > > > 3. Spin coupling of electrons in a magnetic field in the the pot’s metal > lattice, i.e., direct phonic (thermal) energy with a resonant magnetic > field the driver. > > > > I bet the designers know the mechanism, but do advertise it, if is > nuclear or spin coupling. > > > > The unit my daughter has an Asian company brand name. > > > > Bob Cook > > > > *From:* Jones Beene <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:50 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly > > > > 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/ > > 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 > > >
