My take on their process is that the control and the sparks
are related to the positive heat coef. of the reaction and the rate at which
the heat is extracted.
My best empirical model shows an almost exponential increase
in max power output with temperature (due to vacancy production). A few very
hot regions can produce a large
fraction of the output.
My reoccurring problem is to balance the temperature of the
reaction species with the rate at which I remove the heat. You remove too
much heat and the reaction
sites cool down and the reaction slows.
Most people seem to be looking at the global average temperature of the
bulk and not the temperatures of local areas.
By sparking to your sample you can have very high local temperatures and
thus higher local reaction rates, IF your material is such that its resistivity
increases with temperature. Notice this
is the case for most metals. Since the
sparks target the paths with greatest conductivity, the sparks are to new
regions with lower temperatures and lower resistance. i.e. you hit new
regions. I believe that they are basically sparking to
a flat area within a cylinder. I prefer
to use a spark into a bowl shaped target.
You just simply make sure that your heat flow out of the
system is large enough to stop any runaway reactions. (you are also saved by
the 4th power law) For my
system, it is a balancing act between heat production and heat transfer out of
the system. I do that by both having a
variable heat conductive path (variable contact areas by turning- think
variable air caps) for rough tuning and then changing the spark rate (I use a
strobe circuit).
Dennis
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:39:06 -0400
Subject: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
Whenever I read about the DGT device I get the impression that it behaves much
differently than the ECAT. The main difference I focus upon so far is the
method of control. We have discussed the ECAT thermal positive feedback
control on many occasions and have developed models that appear to explain its
operation. The same is not yet true for the DGT beast.
Thermal control such as that used by Rossi seems to have difficulty achieving a
stable COP of 6 for the basic device excluding electrical power generation and
feedback. Of course it is expected that one will be able to use the fed back
electrical power to drive the device one day and achieve a net COP of infinity.
This should become possible fairly soon and Rossi appears to be working hard
to arrive at a reasonable design.
DGT suggests that they potentially can already obtain a large COP, but I have
questions about the design since little has been demonstrated in public. My
reservations can easily be disposed of by additional information and I
anxiously await that time.
The spark plug like ignition system of the DGT animal bears little resemblance
to the thermal operation of Rossi's ECAT. I have the suspicion that there is
something important to be learned by the fact that these various devices both
function. How can that be? What is it about the DGT design that appears to
efficiently use the spark induced reactions while maintaining excellent
control? We certainly are not interested in hot fusion products which tend to
be associated with high voltages such as spark discharges. If acceleration due
to high voltage is present then why does this not occur? Does DGT balance the
spark magnitude carefully enough to avoid this fate while achieving adequate
LENR activity?
I want to learn from the DGT device as well as the ECAT. There appears to be
an understanding among most of us that some form of NAE is present which allows
LENR to proceed, but what form does it take? Is it the same for both designs?
What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to neglect in the ECAT?
It seems as if the ECAT would love to thermally run away without much
provocation while the DGT device does not seem to exhibit that behavior.
Perhaps DGT has done a good job of hiding this problem, but they offer
information that suggests that this is not happening with their design. I find
the description that the DGT design can be turned on and off rapidly to
potentially find applications that are diverse such as transportation, the gold
standard of mine as evidence. If thermal run away were a major issue, then the
rapid control might not be so easy to demonstrate.
>From the information that I have gleaned, both systems appear to offer
>excellent energy density and good power output. This is extremely important
>for future applications. It will be interesting to witness the race between
>these two horses in the near future. Of course, others might enter the fray
>soon and we all will benefit it that occurs.
I realize that I have touched upon a multitude of interesting issues in this
post and I hope that some of our esteemed members can add important information
to the discussion. And if the answers to some of my questions appear, then
that would be fantastic.
Dave
