DaveR and AlanF, and any others doing thermal modeling.
If you are using at least reasonable physical models, with the appropriate thickness of layers, and thermal conductivity and heat capacity of each cylinder, then it seems that one could easily distinguish between the source of heat being reactor core (stainless steel cylinder) or the electrical heaters which are much closer to the out surface. A pulse of heat from the reactor core will take much longer to make it to the outer surface, so the lag-times should be longer. Have either of you done some simulations with the source entirely in the core vs entirely the resistance heaters to determine the difference in lag-time? -Mark Iverson From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:arXiv:1306.6364 Comments on the report "Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder" Blaze, you should review the paper by these two guys in detail. You will see that they fail to understand how the device operates and the model that they used to simulate the behavior did a poor job of replicating the operation of the device. They admit this in at least two ways. First, they claim that the data from the original report must have been time shifted since it did not match their latest model. Second, they admit that much additional power was needed to make the temperatures agree to a reasonable extent. How much more evidence do you need to realize that what they are saying is incorrect? I have constructed a simple model that incorporates positive feedback using heat control which agrees with what Rossi states as well as the report that was generated by the test team. There is no problem with respect to time adjustment or shape. Why do you suppose this is true? And, you really should get a clue from the lack of understanding that these two guys demonstrate about thermal control of a Rossi type device. They fail to understand why heat is needed for control, but my model makes it clear that heat of a PWM shape is necessary to keep it operating without thermal runaway if good COP (6) is to be obtained. The thermal control is going to be the most difficult aspect of a design of this type. Why not expect the paper written by these guys to be representative of the data collected during the experiment? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Jun 28, 2013 2:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:arXiv:1306.6364 Comments on the report "Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder" blaze spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: "That is incorrect. They verified all facts. That was not hard, because this was a black box test with only two relevant sets of facts regarding power input, and heat output. They did not discuss anything else in this paper." Gotcha. You're no longer worth talking to. Thanks for the heads up. Well, okay, they also discussed the Ragone chart and the limits of chemical energy. Anyway, you are welcome. - Jed
