At 02:26 PM 7/25/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
With the electrochemical cells, all else being equal, output is
somewhat proportional to input because high input boosts high
loading which in turn boosts the heat. But I would not call that amplification.
This is classic amplification. A small current controls a larger
current. A small heat controls a larger heat.
I do not think it "controls" it in the same direct sense a
transistor current controls the total output of the device. It is
indirect control at best, and often unreliable. Especially with
electrochemical cells there is a time delay and in many cases
increased power does not work at all. Increased power sets in motion
a chain of events which sometimes -- but not always -- results in
increased output. In some cases power increases on its own in the
absence of any power. The point is, there is no way you can quote a
meaningful ratio here, or extrapolate from the experimental devices
to a commercial product and speculate what the final ratio may be.
There is every reason to think it will be much higher than 1:6.
The E-Cat, I'm assuming, if it works, operates in a temperature
region below that which is self-sustaining. The self-sustaining
temperature will depend not only on the reaction itself but on the
cooling rate.
One could measure and plot heat evolution vs reaction chamber
temperature. If the increase in energy generation exceeds the
external energy it takes to produce that increase, we are operating
in an "amplifier" region of temperature control.
As one approaches self-sustain temperature, the reactor will show,
probably, a higher amplification ratio, but at some point, the
additional temperature will take the reactor beyond control. As long
as the device is not taken to the self-sustaining temperature, it
will remain controllable by the input heat. The closer it is to that
value, the greater the risk that some variation will take it over the
threshold. If it is very close to the threshold, generated heat may
last quite some time beyond the shutdown of the input heat.
The thing that really has me puzzled is this band heater thing. If
the band heater is only heating the cooling chamber, it cannot heat
that chamber beyond 100 degrees. The reaction chamber is heated by
the cartridge heater inside it, if the diagrams are at all correct.
The band heater is labelled 300W, and input power was, for Kullander
and Essen, a little over 300 W. So is there no heating through the
cartridge heater?
The reaction chamber would have to be controlled heat, turning on and
off or being continuously regulated, perhaps as PWM current.
This picture makes no sense.
I'm not talking about electrochemical cells. The "energy
amplification" there was often quite low, perhaps on the order, in a
working cell, of five percent.
