Thanks, but I am not really trying to compete with DGT or Rossi. I am just
doing it to see if it can be done, and to give my swansong farewell before I
retire to my arm chair. That is enough for me. I tried the commercialization
path and got burned..... never again. I have published papers on practical
methods to observe the effect. The knowledge base is there for anyone who
wants to look.
I had a working device on a board table of a major corp, (actually two
different companies) and had their technicians measure and verify and it went
nowhere - back in the CETI days. I don't believe a word that Jed says about
corporations jumping in and throwing money at commercialization. The proof and
methodology is already there. We must first change the public perception.
:) If you show up at NI, stop by, introduce yourself and I will heat up a
cup of tea for you. (OK only COP 1.1 - I hope----- but still )
:)
I really do want DGT to upstage me.
Dennis
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:21:37 -0400
Thanks for the clarification Dennis. I wish you luck at the NI booth and
perhaps DGT will have something that trumps yours, but it appears that you are
in the running.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: DJ Cravens <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Jul 10, 2013 10:42 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400
That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve the
thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the thermal
positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided there is
enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough COP.
Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower outputs and
lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking that has
infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess.
The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being
augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do you
understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You mention
local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause small hot
regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without meltdown?
There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at the
right "speed". I assume that that could be done by adjusting the particle size
and "packing", but in my case, the metal host occupies pores within carbon.
Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading rapidly
into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of energy?
Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such that areas
capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and are easy to
extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to form in time to
take over the process as others die out.
Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my case
the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat spreads other
regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower heat production
rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other regions.
So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? Heating of
a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes the surface.
Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen molecules as a
second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling upon the metal due to
ionization as another possible piece of the puzzle.
The spark just causes very high local temps. I don't really see the spark
functioning to ionize the H (my case D and H). I think it is the H already in
the lattice that reacts.
Has there been evidence of enhanced reaction caused be the magnetic field
associated with the currents entering or leaving the metal surfaces? If I
recall, DGT speaks of dipole behavior of Ryndberg hydrogen helping out. Can
you describe any evidence of this?
Yes, it seems that the reaction is almost linear in respect to the B field.
(also linear with mass, and expon. in terms of Energy of vacancy formation.
(that is why Ag helps Pd system and Cu and Pd ..... helps Ni systems.) I
believe that the H occupies or must move through the vacancies. The occupation
of H in a vacancy is likely in a controlling pathway.
Your bowl shaped targets are quite interesting to consider. Does the bowl tend
to spread out the spark contact region?
Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode
(actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my
material. But the material is only "stuck" to the lower half on the wall.
>From what you describe it appears that your reaction is almost entirely a
>surface effect. Would you expect a very thin layer of active metal to work in
>the same manner? A thin coating layered upon another passive metal might be
>helpful in preventing a large scale thermal event. Maybe one of Axils heat
>pipes underneath could extract the heat quickly enough to enhance the net
>energy density.
Yes, one configuration (I have 4) has variable heat conductive heat pipes. I
have to juggle the heat extraction and production. (changes contact areas)
Do you have to worry about the destruction of your active material as the
process operates?
If I "turn it up" to much my material is destroyed. In one device, I use
internal B fields (added Sm 2 Co 17 powder) and it will demagnetize.
Are you planning to demonstrate one of your devices at the conference?
At NI Week (Booth 922). It will be just a "golly gee" type of demo not a
science "prove it" demo. Small in the few watt range. I hope to be upstaged by
Defkalion.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: DJ Cravens <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 9:29 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process?
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
