There was a BIG change in Rossi’s design when he when from 100 grams of powder to 1 gram. I don’t remember if the ash he submitted for assay was produced by a reactor from the 100 grams design or the 1 gram design.
Rossi now says that his reactor is operating in a stable mode. 40 days of stable operation must by necessity require a major redesign. I can’t see this stability happening if Rossi still is using heat based thermionic charge generation. He must have changed his secret sauce when he when to the Frequency generator. DGT probably still uses a heat based system and suffers from instability. A Spark Discharge reactor is appropriate in a system where the carbon tubes form on metal powder that is stationary because the EMF does not cause the powder to move around. A Radio frequency generator sets up oscillating EMF which causes the powder to jump around and become suspend in the hydrogen. This turbulent powder movement might cause the tubes to break apart. The RFG based system is more complicated. Rossi says he now uses a RFG. But this may not be the best way to build tubes. I am no expert here …yet. Iron will produce heat when stimulated by a RFG. But Chan says he uses a Nichrome heater now instead of iron. Rossi may use Spark Discharge to build the tubes at startup and RFG to charge them up and get them to fly around? Chan says he only uses RFG and his new design does not use iron, only nickel and 5% carbon powder by weight at 200C at startup. Jojo…What do you think? Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Interesting Axil, but this goes back to my original question. > > 930K is CVD reactor temps. So, was the Original Rossi ECat a CVD reactor? > > If so, what could possibly have prompted Rossi to redesign his ECat into a > FatCat. Would a Spark Discharge reactor work better than a CVD based > reactor? As far as CNT creation goes. Maybe not, but it seems a Arc > Discharge reactor would work better with the LENR reaction itself. > > I think I know the answer but I would like to hear your thoughts. > > I'm speculating that the recent Rossi announcement that he has achieved > 600C operation is related to this. 930K ideal temps is close to 600C. > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> > *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:48 AM > *Subject:* [Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes > > Why was so much iron found in the ash (10 %) from Rossi’s reaction? It > could be derived from a need to fabricate carbon nanotubes as part of the > Rossi reaction as documented in the following article. > > http://news.rice.edu/2012/06/15/nanotubes-seek-perfection-from-the-start/ > > *In nanotube growth, errors are not an option* > > Important excerpts of interest for E-Cat reactor builders are as follows. > > 1 - The researchers found that very transition happens best when carbon > nanotubes are grown at temperatures around 930 kelvins (1,214 degrees > Fahrenheit). That is the optimum for healing with an iron catalyst, which > the researchers found has the lowest energy barrier and reaction energy > among the three common catalysts considered, including nickel and cobalt. > > 2 - The researchers also determined through simulations that the slower > the growth, the longer a perfect nanotube could be. A nanotube growing > about 1 micrometer a second at 700 kelvins could potentially reach the > meter milestone, they found. > > 3 - The work at Rice University was initially supported by the National > Science Foundation and at a later stage by an Office of Naval Research > grant. > > Why would the Navy be lately interested in nanotube fabrication? Is it to > help Rossi in his design process? > > > > Cheers: Axil > >
