I'll just add that Defkalion claims that after a pulse of few dozens of joules the reactor have a "heat after death" during few dozens of minutes, of few hundreds of joules.
It works for few days, but electrodes wears out... anyway I imagine that we can eliminate chemical hypothesis after few cycles... about positive feedback it was clear since long. Iv'e erad in a CEA Grenoble report that they tried boiling mills cell to have more heat produced. note that it is not heat but temperature that help reaction, thus if you control the thermal insulation so that temperature get high enough for the excess heat, it get self sustaining... to reach self-sustain then overheating, just put a reactor in a perfectly insulated container... it will get warmer, produce more heat, get warmer, and melt... insulate less nicely but not too much and it will get self sustain, or slow decrease if heat. the control is hard to guess... if temperature increase, heat flow increase with the cooling fluid, and can stabilize or not the reaction. the reactor can also change of positive feedback with time... if it increase, the reactor overheat and meltdown. if it decrease, it extinguish. note also that there might exist many phenomenons with different time-constant, different feedback, and you should put external feed back loops of different contant time, and fifferent gains, to stabilize it as you want... I suspect that defkalion cause shortterm supercriticality, then longterm subcriticality... Rossi hotcat setup seems rough, with the two pairsof similar gauge (are they 2 heaters, heater + thermocouple, else?..) much more rough.... maybe is ther an intrinsic mechanism to stabilize the reactor, like there is on nuclear reactors with the power/temp resonance, and with the delayed neutrons... maybe is this a kind of catalyst (in fact a stabilizer)... what is sure is that self-sustain is not a problem of power but of control. it is much harder than triggering... 2012/9/23 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > In any event neither “4 hours” – nor “heat after death” is adequate >> > > 4 hours far exceeds the limits of chemistry with this device, so it is > adequate. If there were 100 kg of potential chemical fuel and oxidizer in > the machine of course it would not be adequate. The only meaningful > criterion is whether the device can be run on chemical fuel for the > duration of the test. That is, chemical fuel actually present in the > machine. > > "Heat after death" simply means self-sustaining operation. It is the same > thing exactly, just as "cold fusion" is the same as "LENR." It is jargon > invented by Fleischmann. I use the expression only because that is the > search term you need to find papers in the literature with a Google search. > (Incidentally, the Google search at LENR-CANR.org is limited to papers and > HTML screens within that web site.) > > >
