Eric--

Per my recent comment, (I had not read yours) I agree with your comment about 
many unknowns and lack of straightforward relationships.  Anharmicity is not a 
straightforward happening.  

Bob Cook

From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 8:31 PM
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb

Dave, 

My point is not a strong one.  It is largely a comment to the effect that there 
are many unknowns, and the relationship between amount of fuel and the heat 
that is produced in a LENR system may not be straightforward.  To answer your 
questions, suppose that for a given current (100 mA, say) there is a minimally 
sufficient amount of fuel to get excess heat, e.g., 1g active fuel.  Any amount 
of fuel above this threshold will not contribute further without a higher 
current, and any amount below this threshold will decrease the excess heat 
seen.  Within these parameters one can still postulate excess heat as a 
function of temperature, which provides a second variable.  If the temperature 
is high, because there is good insulation, or we're using resistance heaters, 
that will multiply the excess heat in our thought experiment.

My point is only to highlight an assumption that I thought worth exploring -- 
that there is a simple relationship between the amount of fuel in a LENR system 
and the amount of excess heat that is developed.  I am not aware of an 
experiment in which any relationship, consistent with your suggestion or 
otherwise, is clearly shown.

Eric



On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:17 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

  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 <[email protected]>
  To: vortex-l <[email protected]>

  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 <[email protected]> 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

Reply via email to