I have an idea that Ni/H LENR reaction can be controlled electronically by stimulating or retarding it by the character of the spark that drives the LENR reaction. A certain spark character will increase the power of the reaction and another spark type might retard the reaction. Such a real time adjustable spark type might provide a continuum of control with a fine granularity level from one spark discharge to the next. .
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > I feel bad that I missed that one, Ed. Please excuse me. So Rossi can > solve all his problems by adding some spark plugs to his design as has DGT? > > > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Axil, you obviously did not read or do not understand what I said. Please >> read the paragraph in bold again. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> On May 25, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> In the DGT documentation, they state that the DGT reaction can produce >> a COP of 22 to 1. This can be done because they use electronic stimulation >> of the reaction instead a the thermal stimulation. >> >> >> How can this be possible under your current theoretical assumptions? >> Because this high COP does not fit in to your current thinking, then it >> must be untrue, correct? >> >> >> >> >> If you concede that electronic stimulation is a possibility, how can this >> factoid be fitted into your theories? >> >> >> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I like your approach, Dave. To fit reality, you need to take into >>> account two major variables. These are the diffusion rate and the >>> solubility of H in the Ni. Both determine the rate at which H can get to >>> the NAE where it enters into a nuclear reaction. The diffusion rate >>> increases with temperature while the concentration of H decreases. At some >>> high temperature these two competing effects will produce a stable >>> condition. Above this stable temperature, increased temperature will >>> reduce the power output while below the stable temperature, increased >>> temperature will increase the power. This stable condition apparently >>> occurs at a very high temperature when Ni is used, but at a much lower >>> temperature when Pd is the metal. This fact makes Ni more useful as a >>> source of energy than Pd. The best design would be based on achieving this >>> stable temperature without a need for control. Rossi has apparently not >>> mastered this ability. >>> >>> *The concentration of H in the Ni can be increased by increasing the H >>> activity in the gas. This can be done by either increasing pressure or by >>> bombarding the Ni with energetic H+ ions. This additional variable should >>> be added to your model because this method can greatly increase the power >>> and allow for control without using temperature as the controlling variable. >>> * >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> On May 25, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Andrew wrote: >>> >>> Dave, >>> >>> It seems that your model of heat conductivity leads to a system equation >>> that's a linear first order differential equation, if I'm not mistaken. >>> That's a tractable system to deal with from a simulation and control point >>> of view, and as such lends itself to numerical optimisation techniques. >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* David Roberson <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:36 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues >>> >>> Fran, my model takes into account the rate of heat transfer out of the >>> device by using a parameter that simulates a thermal positive feedback >>> loop. And, as you suggest this depends greatly upon the rate of heat >>> generation with temperature and the thermal resistance that it delivers >>> that heat into. Another way to think of this effect is to consider what >>> would happen to a block of active material which is surrounded by a perfect >>> heat conductor. In this special case, any additional heat that is >>> generated is immediately absorbed by the conductor and can not raise the >>> temperature of the block. This would be a stable condition and the COP >>> would be low. Now, if you modify the surrounding heat conductor by >>> increasing its thermal resistance then any newly generated heat from within >>> the block would result in an increase in its internal temperature in a >>> positive feedback manner. The resistance can be increased until it reaches >>> a point such that a tiny incremental input of heat to the block results in >>> a temperature increase of the block that causes additional heat generation >>> slightly larger than the initial increment. Rossi appears to operate above >>> this resistance point when his device has the desired performance. >>> >>> That was a lot of words and I suspect is not clearly written. The meat >>> of the description is that there will be a temperature that depends upon >>> the heat sinking where the device becomes unstable and begins to proceed >>> toward melting. My model suggests that this is the temperature above which >>> Rossi should operate his device to achieve good COP. The model further >>> indicates that you can maintain control of the device while operating above >>> this point as long as you reverse the process before a second temperature >>> trip point is reached that leads to run away. It is important to realize >>> that operation within this region is unstable unless a drive waveform is >>> applied with the proper characteristics. >>> >>> In the radio world this type of device would be referred to as a >>> negative resistance component. Rossi must be relying upon the energy >>> generated in this mode for his large gain. The hard part is to keep the >>> ECAT from getting out of control since he is operating on a sharp balance >>> to obtain good COP. >>> >>> I am not modeling any process that occurs beyond the two temperature >>> trips that I described since operation above the second one is destructive. >>> Operation below the first temperature point results in a COP that is too >>> low to be useful. I have included energy loss due to a 4th order radiation >>> process in some of my runs, but so far I find that control issues occur >>> before this has significant effect. >>> >>> I believe as you do that operation with a heat exchange fluid will be >>> easier to control. This also allows Rossi to adjust the flow rate which >>> could be used to modify the thermal resistance factor and thus total loop >>> dynamics. For example, he could raise the temperature at which the core >>> become unstable thereby compensating for different core activities. >>> >>> My model operates upon the average behavior of an ECAT type device. It >>> assumes that the design has been developed by good engineering processes. >>> If the design team allows the system to harbor inconsistent heat transfer >>> such as would occur with too many and too large in size hot spots, then >>> there is no control technique that will work effectively. I suspect that >>> much effort will center around making sure this issue is handled. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: francis <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 7:16 am >>> Subject: re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues >>> >>> Dave, I think you we are both in agreement with the initial post of Ed’s >>> thermal analysis, >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80803.html but it >>> does not mention the difference between the destructive test in open air >>> and the unit in normal operation which is constantly bathed in a heat >>> extracting fluid.. are you modeling this in your SPICE calculation? The >>> thermal circuit in the destructive test only has air cooling to keep the >>> runaway at bay and represents a softer – more fragile target for the >>> waveforms to temporarily exceed while I think the reactor in heavy heat >>> sinking mode would have much higher tolerance for controlled PWM >>> excursions into areas that would be considered runaway if not for the >>> steady drain. >>> Fran >>> >>> [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM >>> Issues<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22%5BVo%5D%3A+ECAT+Drive+PWM+Issues%22> >>> David >>> Roberson<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22David+Roberson%22> >>> Fri, 24 May 2013 23:30:52 >>> -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20130524> >>> >>> I was adjusting my spice model of the ECAT when I decided to determine how >>> >>> important it is to keep the device operating within the normally unstable >>> >>> region at all times. Here I refer to the unstable region as that operation >>> >>> range where the ECAT would tend toward over heating unless under control. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no end to the questions which keep arising as to how heat can be >>> >>> applied in the proper format to keep an unstable device operating under >>> control >>> >>> when it is capable of putting out more heat than required to drive it. >>> And, >>> >>> the ECAT tends to operate best when the COP is equal to 6 which clearly is >>> >>> within this mode. >>> >>> >>> >>> One day this will be accepted. For now, I want to mention that it is >>> important >>> >>> to keep the ECAT operating near the ultimate thermal run away region. If >>> the >>> >>> device temperature is allowed to drop too far before the drive returns then >>> the >>> >>> COP degrades significantly. And, as is somewhat demonstrated by the >>> waveforms >>> >>> shown in the recent report, the length of time that the temperature >>> hesitates >>> >>> at its greatest level is determined by how by Coupon Companion" >>> id="_GPLITA_0"close >>> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg80977.html> to that >>> ultimate run away >>> >>> temperature the device operates. >>> >>> >>> >>> My test runs demonstrate that the ECAT needs to be operating at a maximum >>> >>> temperature near to its ultimate thermal run away point and that the >>> variation >>> >>> in output temperature needs to be maintained low by timing of the PWM drive. >>> >>> >>> >>> Both of these requirements should be met if the ECAT is to deliver the >>> desired >>> >>> COP of 6 and remain stable. My spice model offers good guidance even >>> though it >>> >>> can only approximate a real device. >>> >>> >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
