I suggest LENRv2 or LENR2 instead of LENR++ as this is a totally different reaction, not just an enhancement of the previous process.
Version 2 is based on electric control of Carbon Nanotubes instead of temperature control of Thermionic Catalysts. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+ as a supplemented LENR design, I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design. DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now far superior if the recent reports are accurate. The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric current then he has a much improved device. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the reaction. On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is averaged over a period of time. Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat production. The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or puffery? Harry On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi ECAT can > operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This is a > remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof will > be delivered soon. > The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the > temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that appears > to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the > mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of > temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a form > of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy > generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. > I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the > output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from the > strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to contend > with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the > reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. > There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and > variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has > found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an > electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if all > or any of this is true. > Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the > Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control > handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner associated > with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative > feedback were dominate? > I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have been > outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say something > remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we will > see the results that we so much anticipate. > Dave >
