Bob-- Design a vacuum annular space as an insulator and add He to improve heat conduction as required to cool the system, i.e., a variable insulator.
Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 8:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly I agree that in the future, it may be valuable to use inductive heating on LENR devices that could evolve from the Lugano/Parkhomov/glowstick reactors. However, at this stage in the game, I don't feel this technology is necessary or desirable. It is not desirable because it is difficult technology to assess how much source heat is being delivered to the reactor core - in a way that is not equivocal. We need simple heating that can be readily be modeled. In the case of induction heating, the load impedance will be constantly changing as the core undergoes chemical and phase changes over temperature. This will mean that the tuning of the inductively coupled elements will have to be dynamically adjusted. You will constantly be faced with determining at each impedance match how much power is going into the core or directly into the calorimeter or the surroundings. It may prove painful to be able to compare the result to a dummy run due to different dynamic impedance matches. The reason people are having trouble with resistive heaters is, quite simply, because they are not getting assistance from excess heat in the core. From looking at the reported successful experiments, excess heat (XH) should be turning on in the 700-900C range, and if you are getting this XH, then it won't be that hard to get to a core temperature of 1200C. OTOH, if there is no excess heat, you will be driving the heater coil very hard to get to that same temperature (probably by a factor of 2), which will greatly shorten its life. Another observation is that the present heater coil designs can be improved by using a larger diameter heater wire. The larger the wire, the longer it will last at temperatures in excess of 1200C. Generally this will mean trending to lower resistance coils and lower voltage drive. Lower voltage drive is not a problem if you design for it. Also, I believe these reactors should be better insulated until such time as XH is observed. I realize that the insulation will create a potential for run-away reaction when XH occurs, but that would be the best possible news if it happened. When it does happen, just start again with less insulation. The insulation will allow you to reach the 1200C range with less input heater power and will allow you to detect a smaller XH in early experiments. You can hope for a home run, but don't count on it. It is much more likely that a small XH will be detected before you optimize to realize a larger COP. Bob Higgins On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 7:39 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Jones, I agree with your desire to find an easy to use and inexpensive heating method. I am just pointing out that it may become a very difficult task to get efficient heating unless the drive coil is a reasonable match to the load. You can visualize what I am pointing out by taking a normal pot load and raising it above the heating coil. Once you get beyond a certain elevation, the amount of heat deposited into the pot reduces rapidly. This is due to the mismatch that occurs in impedance. It makes a great deal of sense to try to use one of those inexpensive systems but don't be surprised to find that it is difficult to heat the load to the desired level unless it is flat and spread out. Magnetic flux coupling is the key parameter and it falls rapidly with shape mismatch and distance. Also, the conductive and magnetic characteristic of the fuel is a big factor that is going to add confusion to the testers. A simple wire heating system is far easier to meter and calibrate in my opinion. Dave
