Wouldn't you need a time varying magnetic field for this to work? Harry
> >From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Thu, April 21, 2011 9:44:28 AM >Subject: [Vo]:Magnetostriction and Cavitation ll > > >This is a long post putting together several threads of evidence that the >Rossi >reactor is a cavitation reactor. > > >Pressurized hydrogen in contact with nickel nanopowder is cavitated, >eventually >undergoing first chemical and then nuclear reactions, with copious excess >heat. >The Casimir effect could be involved in a novel way for the chemical part. >Fractional hydrogen could be involved. The nuclear part is confused by >conflicting reports about radioactivity. Best bet is that it is the “Ra >Reaction” of our sun – conversion of hydrogen into deuterium, but that is >speculation for other posts. > >An appreciation for the history of the Griggs pump is necessary to grasp all >of >this. Here is some information on the pump, which is still in commercial >production in Rome (the one in Georgia): >http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm > >The Hydro-Dynamics pump employed cavitation and shock waves from a dimpled >rotor >spinning inside a housing to increase the temperature of water flowing through >the device. It was tested on a number of occasions to be OU, but not reliably. >Jed Rothwell has reported on it, as did Infinite Energy. Now - imagine the >rotor >being non-rotating ! > > >Cavitation in the Rossi device could be described as Griggs pump - with the >reactor substituted for the dimpled rotor. The reactor cavitates violently, >but >at low excursion, and would not be noticed in a demo, since the effects are >dampened by the water flow. Primarily, it produces cavitation INSIDE the cell, >and ironically this would never have been noticed outside the cell except for >contrasting the two tests in Bologna, one with low water flow, and one with >high. This could be a most fortuitous discovery for anyone working on a >replication. > >The higher water flow is substantially more efficient than low flow - and the >reason for that relates to Griggs and to optimizing cavitation. The outer >surface of the reactor would be the functional equivalent of a transducer to >cavitate the water flowing over it, but only if the water pressure was high >enough. The Griggs pump needs massive water flow. The internal cavitation is >not >changed much in either case, so there is always that base level of heating due >to internal cavitation. The “clue” that cracks the case - turns out to be in >contrasting the two test results in the context of a heated argument. > >Magnetostriction is a property of ferromagnetic materials, particularly nickel >- >that causes them to change shape during magnetization. It was discover by >Joule >himself, in nickel, long ago. The effect is responsible for the familiar "hum" >which can be heard near transformers at 100 (=2*50) or 120 (=2*60) hertz, plus >higher harmonics. Transformers are iron based, but nickel nanopowder could be >much more extreme in the effect. With the very high excursion of surfaces at >the >nano level, the magnetostriction effect would be magnified by perhaps an order >of magnitude and yet nearly imperceptible at the local level. > >The reactor containing the nanopowder would function like a humming >transformer >core and it could also operate internally with shock waves pushing hydrogen >into >Casimir cavities. As in the Griggs pump, cavitation generates shock waves >which >convert mechanical energy into acceleration and eventually into heat energy - >in >a way that is gainful at times. The Rossi reactor is apparently gainful all of >the time, and that could be due to the employment of nano geometry. Many of >the >common transducers used for sonochemistry are magnetostrictive instead of >piezoelectric, as these are more robust at high input. The efficiency is very >high. > > >It is too much of a coincidence that the reactor loses it heating effect at a >temperature which coincides with the Curie point of nickel, and is more robust >when more heat is removed by higher water flow; not to mention that the >“resistors” have a magnetic field. An interesting point is that the inventor >may >have discovered this inadvertently and never thought to optimize the input >power, which should be easier to do via an inductive coil instead of >resistance >heaters. > > >If this proves accurate in a replication effort, then my thanks go out in a >general way, to all of the Vortex posters who have mentioned these details in >past postings, as I have not had the time to go back to credit them >individually >- you know who you are J > >Jones > > > >
