Comparisons of systems are valuable in understanding what the LENR reaction is doing. As a general principle, phonon driven dipole oscillations of electrons and associated ions (Holes) are the power plant that drives the LENR process.
Heat pumps energy into these dipoles so that they vibrate vigorously. There is an energy concentration mechanism that is fed by these dipoles. This concentration mechanism absorbs this dipole energy and saves it with little or no loss in power. As heat is added to the system, thermal power is transferred optically to the energy storage mechanism in the way that a battery stores current chemically or a Cyclotron stores electrons magnetically. There is a limit to this energy transfer mechanism but that limit is a timeframe not a breakout of an energy containment mechanism. The Cravens system uses low quality heat to drive the LENR process. The initiation temperature is low but the thermal power mechanism to energy accumulation is proportionally weak because the weak flow of energy to storage is cut off by the reaction timeframe limitation. In the Ni/H system, the initiation temperature is higher and the thermal power mechanism to energy accumulation is proportionally stronger because the stronger flow of energy to storage is large during the reaction timeframe. So a high initiation temperature makes for a stronger reaction with greater power production. As a example of this concept, if the Creavens system increased the Debye temperature of its material, and the bath used to supply thermal input power were hotter, more power might be produced. If a liquid metal bath could heat the pure nickel reaction powder to high temperatures were to replace the water bath, and nickel was used to replace the palladium alloy, more heat output density might result. Taking this line of thinking to its extreme, the materials with the highest Debye temperatures :( Silicon, 645K), (Beryllium, 1440 K), (Carbon, 2230 K) may provide the most output power density. PS. If NASA is using carbon nanotubes in there process, they will not reach the light off temperatures needed for a carbon based system because that extreme temperature is too high for standard engineering designs. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> sounds like the Les Case system I have now. Tube in a tube. >> > > I think it is just a sensor mounted on the outside of a copper tube. The > oil flows through the tube. Not having a T will reduce the likelihood of a > leak. McKubre and I have some concerns about mixing. Not many concerns, > because the calibration looks good. > > > >> The problem is if you have the delta T too high the properties of the >> oil (heat cap., viscosity,...) start to confuse things.----- at least for >> me. >> > > Yes. They have thought about these issues. > > > blaze spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I read 195 watts input, up to 20 watts excess. Is that correct? >> > > You may be right. I don't have access to the slides or abstract. > > >> >> That's a little weak and seems subject to measurement error. >> > > It sounds like a small percent of input but I do not think it is a problem > because the input power is direct current resistance heating. It is only > needed to bring the cell up to the working temperature. It does not > contribute directly to the reaction. It does not control the reaction the > way Rossi's heat does, or Defkalion's sparking does. > > DC power is very stable and easy to measure with high precision. If this > were 195 W of electrolysis, sparking or glow discharge the input power > would be irregular and somewhat difficult to measure, but 195 W of DC power > has to be the easiest thing in experimental science to measure. So the > background noise is low. Having said that, from Kitamura's lecture and > slides it is a little unclear what the background noise level is. Unclear > to me, anyway. > > - Jed > >
