Eric and Dave-- I have thought that there may be other controlling parameters, such as pressure affecting volatility of Li and potentially other fuel constituents, or magnetic field which enhances with INCREASING temperature by the resultant establishment of SSP’s. I think there are many parameters that may effect the rate of the LENR, not only temperature. Resonant conditions may also play a role with with the speed of sound in the internals being an important parameter.
Since we do not understand the mechanism occurring, its hard to guess the runaway mechanism. In a nuclear fission reactor runaway is not temperature dependent. It is a very fast reaction caused by an over abundance of fast neutrons that increase their population exponentially with time. Of course in thermo-nuclear reactions temperature is the culprit. It does seem that the LENR runaways happen pretty fast. I do not believe I have ever seen a time constant reported however. Such a time constant may shed light on the LENR mechanism however. Finally, anharmonic mechanisms will make understanding even harder, but they may be a cause as well. Bob Cook From: David Roberson Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature. How else would one explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with these systems forever? If the outside temperature does not increase by adding more fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional heat will be developed within the newly added material when it is subjected to the fixed temperature and current that initially exists. So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of 2 at that initial temperature? Apparently you are speculating that the temperature remains the same. And in the extreme case, what happens when you take out all of the fuel? The bottom line is that some function must define the behavior as the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary along with that function. The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is that COP is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel loading as long as the system geometry remains the same. I am leaving out the interaction of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the COP as fuel is added to an initially constant temperature chamber to simplify the example. Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving factor instead of temperature. Why would the device require such high temperatures in order to generate energy? It is not clear that the current itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that current flowing through the resistive windings. In any case I would be extremely confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would not vary as the amount of fuel is changed. No one has ever suggested this effect AFAIK unless of course that there is no LENR present. But the assumption is a COP of 1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase. Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are proposing? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can be quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct? Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally sufficient amount of fuel. Eric
