You have posed some interesting questions Bob. I have given the charge weight(50-100g) a modest amount of thought and suggest that the reason for this magnitude is for practical concerns. I assume that the heat generation mechanism occurs throughout the volume of the charge while the heat escaping into the output must pass through the surface of the reactor chamber. If they increased each of the dimensions of the core by a fixed fractional amount then the ratio of volume to area would increase by that factor. In other words, the internal temperature of the reaction material would by necessity go up and become closer to melting for the same output power per kilogram. Both of these groups may have found the best balance to use based upon their geometry and the amount of time they applied to the situation.
Another factor to consider when choosing the best quantity of material for the reactors is the efficiency of the heating source required to reach operational temperature. The heating associated with this source is lost through the surface area of the reaction chamber as well. A larger mass of material in contact with the heater compared to the surface area of escape leads to easier heating and less watts. All of my thoughts are based upon the heat generation mechanism being local to the reaction region. Rossi has stated on more than one occasion that radiation carries a significant amount of energy from this region into the lead shield where it is released. DGT suggests that they do not release any significant amount of radiation by their process and I am left with wondering if the same mechanism is operating in both cases. We will only know the truth once the devices are reverse engineered by skilled scientists and engineers. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Cc: rj.bob.higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2012 11:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rydberg matter and the leptonic monopol Of course, I was not there to personally witness any of the hardware or the testing. I am working entirely from second hand reports of what was done. Rossi appears to have been well versed in the behavior of his smaller, early systems in terms of warm-up, self-sustain, re-start/maintenance modes. He apparently had difficulty getting the self-sustain mode to last for sufficient time and that may have been the bone of contention with DGT, his partner at the time. At the time he also appears to have had a relationship with Upsalla (Kullander/Essen) who appeared to at least influence the design of the "ottoman" class reactors. It appears that the "frequencies" input was first shown as part of the ottoman reactor. I surmise it was designed to help stimulate the self-sustain reaction by allowing the operation at lowest H2 pressure without spontaneous statistical cooling and drop-out of reaction because of cooling. The "frequencies" seem to have averaged out the reaction - making it less statistically chaotic. The frequencies are not required for the effect to occur, but only appear to have been added to stabilize it. An interesting, but un-discussed observation has to do with the individual reactor size. Rossi's original small eCats were using a 50g charge of fuel. It appeared that his Ottoman design used 3 internal reaction cells that were each in the 50-100g range. DGT's reactor seems to be in this 50-100g range for a reactor cell. The question that arises is, "Is there a large scale collective effect (similar to a critical mass) that is required to make this reaction stable and repeatable?" Where does the 50-100g cell size come from? Will it work just as well in 1g cells? Unknown. In Peter's post on the nanoparticles and plasmons ... It is interesting that nanoparticles are sized in a commensurate number of atoms that will both support plasmons and Rydberg condensates. Could the two phenomena be related or at least coupled? My expectation is that in a typical 50g charge of fuel, there may be ~10^18 nanosites dispersed on the nickel micropowder. Rossi claimed 5kW for 6 months on this charge which is 7.8x10^10 joules. Presuming that 50% of the nanosites were active and consumed in this period, then each nanosite would have supplied ~4x10^-8 joule/active nanosite = ~240GeV/active nanosite. If we "guestimate" ~25MEV/transmutation (estimated in D+D->He), then each active nanosite would be providing about 10,000 transmutations. This is not an unrealistic number of transmutations to occur in a ring around the nanosite on the nickel where the nanosite itself was an area containing 1000 nanopowder atoms - at least from a rough order of magnitude. On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Axil Axil wrote: Correct me if I am wrong… The “frequencies" generator was used in the 1 MW test in self-sustain mode only after the reactor got up to temperature and the internal heater was placed in sleep mode. Since self-sustain mode was a relatively new development associated with and as a feature of the big 1 MW reactor, its use may not be directly correlated with lowered H2 pressure.
