David,

 

I agree with this analysis, if I understand what you are saying, but I may
be reading more into it than you are willing to do. In the end -  it is most
interesting that we would have a positive feedback mechanism but NOT
positive thermal feedback. Yet that seems to be the case.

 

That does not leave many options for defining the precise feedback
parameters. Do you have a favorite? It think that it is most important, in
the analytical process, to understand the positive feedback loop in great
detail; yet so far - no one has really made a strong effort. at least not
one that I have seen.

 

My current favorite for this is some form of Curie point cycling, involving
inductive heating (as opposed to Ohmic heating). 

 

That would make the net heat which is seen derive from two separate sources
- Ohmic, which is the baseline input- and then there is a succession of
collapsing magnetic fields, as the gain. The Ohmic would be the input that
is necessary to get you near the threshold, and the repetitive magnetic
collapse would constitute the gain. This fits in nicely with parts of the
Letts/Craven effect.

 

So far this analysis is incomplete - one-way - and the cycle which restores
the field (the local field which collapsed) needs to be better understood.
This could be related to small changes in proton loading and unloading into
nano-cavities, but that is a guess. 

 

The proton has massive magnetic susceptibility but the hydrogen molecule
almost none. This is independent from the Curie point of host (i.e. nickel)
but the loading/unloading is a thermal function, so the two operate as a
positive feedback loop.

 

 

From: David Roberson 

 

[snip] I pointed out before that the power was clearly being emitted in
impulse form that was subsequently filtered by the time constants associated
with the system.  This behavior is typical of a multitude of positive
feedback oscillations that originate within many small regions of the active
wire.  And, since the power was being applied to the inactive wire during
this period one can conclude that the impulses were not due to thermal
feedback affecting the current flow within the active wire

 

Reply via email to