Axil, IMHO, the following is my analysis: 1. I think we can be certain that the major redesign had something to do with being able to deliver sparks more efficiently. A pressure vessel made of 2 parallel plates makes abosolutely no sense for a pressure vessel from a mechanical or structural point of view. A vessel that is wide and broad and thin makes a poor pressure vessel because it is more difficult to prevent leaks and to fortify it properly for pressure operation. Hence the resulting vessel would have to be sturdier than necessary making it more expensive. Hence, makes no sense from a structural point of view. There's a reason why almost pressure vessels we use in the industry are cylindrical in shape, ie. propane tanks, gas tanks, oxygen tanks, and all sorts of pressure tanks. Roosi's redesign to a FatCat was prompted by something else. To me, it was the need to deliver sparks. I can't think of anything else.
2. The redesign to a FatCat must have obliviated the need for an RF. Why? for the simple reason that the FatCat is now made of steel, as opposed to the original ECat being made of copper. We all know RF energy will NOT penetrate a vessel made of steel. Hence, there must be no RF involved in the FatCat. I see no possible way the RF coil could be inside the reactor. The operating temps inside would quickly disintegrate the insulating cover of any magnet wire wound into a coil to deliver sufficient RF energy. An RF antenna that is not shaped into a coil is not likely to be able to deliver much RF energy of consequence. 3. I do not believe any RF applied could break up the CNTs. I can not see a situation where enough RF energy with enough frequency could be delivered against the CNTs to break it up. The tensile and Flexural stength of CNTs is beyond what an RF antenna of whatever kind can deliver. At the move we can deliver a few watts of RF, (notwithstanding #2) so there does not appear to be enough power to break CNTs apart. Here's my understanding of what really goes on inside the FatCat (my understanding comes mostly from what you have posted.) 1. I believe the FatCat is a combination CVD reactor and Arc Discharge reactor in one. The process starts with a reactor that is loaded with a few grams of Nickel powder (as seed material for CNT growth.) and carbon/graphite powder; all at nanometer sizes. Rossi does not vaccuum his reactor so there would be oxygen in there. 2. H2 is loaded at the required pressure. 3. The reactor is heated to the CVD operating temp of around 600C (Remember, this is now a steel pressure vessel, It does not have the original ECat's temp limitation. It can be operated at much higher temps.) 4. As the carbon is heated, it would react with the oxygen inside and form CO. Hence all the oxygen would be taken up into CO and would not pose an explosion hazard when sparks are introduced. The rest of the carbon sublimates and starts to form CNTs on the Nickel seed material. At this point, the CNTs are simply sitting quietly on the bottom of the reactor. 5. After a while, when suficient CNTs have formed, Rossi removes the heating and starts applying sparks. Since the reactor plate would be perfectly parallel, the sparks would be distributed all across the entire area not just in one place. Visualize lightning all over the landscape. This lightning would stir up the CNTs at the bottom and spread them out and suspend them in the H2 envelope. Subsequent sparks would charge them with enormous charge. This would provide the necessary charge screening for any H+ ions that may come near these CNTs. With sufficient charge screening, the H+ ions fuses and viola, Fusion. The liberated heat can now be harvested. Heat that is not harvested would serve to further ionize any other H2 molecule and further create CNTs on the remaining nickel seed material. Because the CNT NAE is now dynamically created, Rossi now does not have quiescience problems like he did initially when his NAE was based on cracks on the Nickel tubules. 6. This mechanism allows Rossi to control the reaction rate by applying varying rates of sparks. Ongoing creation of CNTs can be controlled by modulating the reactor temps around 600C. (I could not figure out why the operating temps was 600C, why not 700C or 900C, Until I realized that the reactor was a CVD reactor.) I've got to go. I'll elaborate on my reasons in subsequent posts. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 6:09 AM Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi’s carbon nanotubes 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 To: vortex-l 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
