I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically dumped and refilled by computer control.
We have discussed that high pressure hydrogen is an excellent conductor of heat. In the Rossi design, it is the hydrogen envelope that moves heat from the centrally located axial powder heat production zone to the outer vessel wall. Ultimately, it is the outer wall that cools the reactor core. Some here at vortex have said that there is indications the DGT uses hydrogen pressure to regulate Reactor power. In the Rossi design where the powder zone in centrally located, this control mechanism will not work. Also in the Rossi design, the Production of Rydberg atoms and heat insolation are opposed to each other. When you decrease the hydrogen pressure, the powder zone will suffer a temperature rise because the lower pressure hydrogen will be more insolating. What DGT must have done was move the powder zone to directly contact the reactor wall. The powder will now pass heat to the coolant without the mediation of hydrogen heat transfer. Now, in the DGT design we speculate that when the hydrogen pressure is reduced, this action will reduce the production of Rydberg atoms that will intern reduce proton production which in turn will slow the reaction. With this relocation of the powder zone, DGT gains the critically needed direct power control mechanism (hydrogen pressure) which can directly increase (by increasing hydrogen pressure) or reduce (by reducing hydrogen pressure) the power output of the reactor. Best regards to all: I am happy to still be here having narrowly avoided the kill list. I apologize for a singular, ill-advised, and unintentional indiscretion humbly begging forgiveness with an earnest plea for redemption if that helps. Axil On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark - I thought you found the “entanglement” paper. Or … did you not > make the possible inter-connection between ‘entanglement’ and ‘tunneling’? > **** > > ** ** > > Anyway, thanks goes out to whoever brought up the issue of quantum > entanglement. As now - it is sounding more and more relevant even if the > application to tunneling probability is way off the beaten path. After all > this is QM so prepare to be confused.**** > > ** ** > > This is a good time to suggest that anyone interested in how to avoid > quiescence - take another look at the DGT pics. **** > > ** ** > > I see three solenoid valve controls for hydrogen in/out and the control > circuitry which indicates clearly to me that hydrogen is being periodically > dumped and refilled by computer control. **** > > ** ** > > I suspect that this cycle is on a timer or a timer plus other inputs in a > simple Pic or Arduino micro-controller. The dumps are probably in the range > of 6-8 hours between cycles (based on Rossi’s prior results of the > applicable period of highest activity). The dump-and-refill overcomes the > quiescence cycle, at least in the short term – at the expense of using > perhaps 4-8 extra grams of H2 per day. **** > > ** ** > > Otherwise – why have solenoid control, if the thing is designed for a 6 > month run? **** > > ** ** > > I hate to imagine that Rossi could be too cheap to realize that the extra > hydrogen dumped is not all that important. Or maybe he is just too proud to > carefully study the Hyperion pictures (more likely).**** > > ** ** > > And besides, with the few grams/day of hydrogen dump, this is not a pure > loss – it can be ported to a fuel cell, where the slight loss of mass form > the prior Hyperion run will not be noticed, since the “depleted H2” can > still be oxidized in a chemical reaction.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint **** > > ** ** > > Jones wrote:**** > > “Stated simply, quiescence involves “too much depletion” in the mass of > the hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. > This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have > already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors.”**** > > ** ** > > Re: the statement, “…and **you** have already found papers suggestive…”*** > * > > ** ** > > I started LOL… that **I** found? This post touches on the element of > ‘meta-physics’ that SVJ has mentioned recently.**** > > ** ** > > One of the things that I enjoy doing it ‘serendipitous surfin’… which is > hard to explain, but I just start with perhaps a link supplied here on > vortex, or a link on PhysOrg.com, and start reading and following links and > reading and following links, grabbing a phrase from some article and > googling it, going thru the search results, and I will usually come across > something that just says to me, “this is important”. Don’t know why, since > many of the papers I find and post here require esoteric/advanced physics > understanding that I don’t have… I can usually narrow it down to specific > phrases, but bring in the meta-physical side, I think it’s the subconscious > mind which has seen how that paper (piece of the puzzle) fits into the > bigger picture, and somehow alerts my conscious mind that it’s important. > The conscious mind is too distracted by the realities of living, work, > paying the bills, etc., to make the ‘connections’; to see how a given paper > or discovery is important.**** > > ** ** > > That’s where Vortex-l, ‘The Collective’, comes into play… it’s as if the > Collective is a kind of global, artificial subconscious made up of people! > Some people are bringing in pieces of the puzzle but not sure where they > go, and some can see where those pieces ‘fit’ in. Does that make sense??? > It is what makes this forum different from most, and is a concept that > trolls don’t understand, nor respect.**** > > ** ** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:27 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance**** > > ** ** > > Mark,**** > > ** ** > > The first question that must be answered is: it the Ni-H phenomena Quantum > Mechanical in nature, or is it Thermonuclear, on a reduced scale? **** > > ** ** > > There are some that still believe Ni-H is thermonuclear and in fact, Pd-D > could be. In fact W-L theory tries hard not to be forced into making that > decision, and has QM features - but if the defining detail of that theory > involves neutrons, neutron capture - and subsequent weak-force reactions, > just as are seen in traditional physics – then it is a thermonuclear theory. > **** > > ** ** > > Theories that involve tunneling of protons in one form or another are QM > based – if no neutron is involved. QM is normally too low in probability to > account for much heat. But one aftermath of the development of the modern > CPU by Intel and others is that QM tunneling (of electrons) can be engineer > and optimized to occur at very high rates. A CPU operating a 2 GHz will > have electrons tunneling in predictable fashion the high terahertz range. > The CPU is a QM electron tunneling device operating at high probability.** > ** > > ** ** > > The CPU is a good model to use for proton tunneling – where instead of a > small chip needing to shed 30 watts of heat (and not gainful) you have much > more heat, and importantly it is anomalous due to the tunneling. **** > > ** ** > > If there is gain, then it must be defined. Without going into great > detail on defining the gain for now, except to say that it comes from the > mass of the proton, and it comes without much radiation or transmutation > (some of each, but way too little to account for the gain), then it is > easier to account for the quiescence phenomenon. **** > > ** ** > > Stated simply, quiescence involves “too much depletion” in the mass of the > hydrogen so that the high level of probability of tunneling is reduced. > This is where anything that relates to QM probability come in, and you have > already found papers suggestive of a few of these factors.**** > > ** ** > > Rossi has designed a reactor where hydrogen is not circulated and it is > likely that he could eliminate the problem with periodic dumping of H2 and > reloading (every few hours) on a set schedule. There is evidence that DGT > may be doing this already.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint **** > > ** ** > > If quiescence is a reality, and **if** it will require a scientific/QM > understanding, the I don’t think any amount of ‘control engineering’ is > going to be much help… one will need to find out the cause of the > quiescence, which is a physics problem…**** > > ** ** > > If the quiescence is of a reasonable periodic nature (i.e., repeatable), > or if it gives you adequate ‘warning’ that it has started, then one could > have 2 or 3 reactor cores inside, only one of which is ‘running’. When it > begins to go into quiescence, one then starts up one of the ‘idle’ cores… > while shutting down the quiescent one. This is a brainless kind of > solution, and wouldn’t work if the quiescent core needs to be unassembled > in order to make it ‘ignite’ again. If reactive capability can be > reinstated by shocking it with a hi-V pulse or cycling H2 pressure, things > like that, then it could be automated and done while in-situ. These are > engineering problems, not scientific ones…**** > > ** ** > > -m**** >
