Jones,
You appear to have a more in dept concept than I have developed. Most of my observations have been at the macro level which are demonstrated by the chart variables. I find it intriguing that Celani's LENR output seems to occur in the form of many individual bursts while most of my earlier thoughts had been that the material behaved according to some larger scaled system. When I give serious consideration to Rossi's device, I realize that his material consists of mainly fine powder thus that most likely is how it also supplies its output energy. It now seems unlikely that a coordinated release from literally millions of grains would occur and that these types of devices probably act similar to a thermodynamic collection of events. This sort of behavior is not impossible to understand, but required us to treat the material as an overall process and we will not be able to track individual reactions very well. This is somewhat similar to the way atoms within a volume generate pressure and exhibit temperature effects as external work or heat is applied to that system. I am still attempting to understand exactly how Rossi's powder and now Celani's wire respond to applied heat. The function of excess power generated versus material temperature is of great importance as we make an attempt to control the operation of these things. Now I suspect that time domain issues could further complicate control. Since I suspect that the overall heat being generated as a result of LENR activity consists of a very large collection of individual impulses it is important to have an understanding of how much energy each of the impulses contain. Celani's wire suggests that a moderate number of macro bursts occur in his experiment. This seems to be in line with the mini explosions that were observed in the palladium-deuteron experiments I have seen where craters are formed. Does anyone know of documentation where scientists have tied the crater sizes to the amount of energy required to generate them? Also, it would be interesting for Celani to attach a wide band microphone or group of them to his device. I suspect that information can be gathered by triangulation to locate the active burst points and if lucky their magnitudes and durations. The present measurement system has a response time that responds to heating of the gas and other materials before output can be observed. This filtering effect smoothes out fast rise times and impulse location information. In Rossi's case, his fine powder would suggest that the individual size of his impulses would by necessity be very small. If instead we determine that the energy released by Rossi's reaction consists of coordinated tiny regions, then a new interesting process would be implied. All of these ideas are speculation until the proper data becomes available for analysis. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Oct 8, 2012 1:37 pm Subject: 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 youare willing to do. In the end - it is most interesting that we would havea positive feedback mechanism but NOT positive thermal feedback. Yet that seemsto be the case. That does not leave manyoptions for defining the precise feedback parameters. Do you have a favorite? Itthink that it is most important, in the analytical process, to understand thepositive feedback loop in great detail; yet so far – no one has reallymade a strong effort… at least not one that I have seen. My current favorite forthis is some form of Curie point cycling, involving inductive heating (asopposed to Ohmic heating). That would make the net heatwhich is seen derive from two separate sources – Ohmic, which is thebaseline 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 thethreshold, and the repetitive magnetic collapse would constitute the gain. Thisfits 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 whichcollapsed) needs to be better understood. This could be related to smallchanges in proton loading and unloading into nano-cavities, but that is aguess. The proton has massivemagnetic susceptibility but the hydrogen molecule almost none. This isindependent from the Curie point of host (i.e. nickel) but theloading/unloading is a thermal function, so the two operate as a positivefeedback loop. From:David Roberson [snip] I pointedout before that the power was clearly being emitted in impulse form that wassubsequently filtered by the time constants associated with the system. This behavior is typical of a multitude of positive feedback oscillationsthat originate within many small regions of the active wire. And, sincethe power was being applied to the inactive wire during this period one canconclude that the impulses were not due to thermal feedback affecting thecurrent flow within the active wire
