Don't we need to set up a thermal gradient to exploit any thermal - Curie point cycling? And if they are building an "incubator" the thermal gradient will fade. Perhaps heat sinking is actually critical to the cycling mechanism - cooling the gas just below threshold as it approaches the wire and allowing it to repeatedly exceed the threshold through anomalous action. Do we need to slowly introduce more heat sinking to amplify the amount of just under threshold gas - like building a fire from sparks you have to kindle it gently.
Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Progress from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (Celani replication) 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
