The point about the heat transfer into the beads increasing with temperature differential is well taken. Also, as you say, the beads offer an excellent sink for any energy being internally generated and flowing through the surface area of the spheres. The net result is that the sphere looks outwards and sees a thermal resistance into which it delivers its power.
My model of Rossi's ECAT suggests that the instantaneous slope of temperature rise as a function of power exiting the device is one of the key factors that determines when thermal run away begins. This is another way to describe the thermal resistance facing the device. The other factor is the instantaneous slope of power generated by the device material as a function of the temperature applied to that material. When the product of these factors becomes greater than unity thermal run away can begin to occur. This is the point where positive feedback begins to dominate the behavior. You can manipulate either of these factors to achieve an unstable operating point. Your thoughts about putting the sphere within an insulating gel appears to be sound. I guess the main question is what happens as the device heats up. Does the magnetic effect of the Sm Co get wiped out by the rising temperature? When this occurs, does the heat generating mechanism cease, causing the system to cool? Something of this nature might escape observation if it happens quickly. I don't understand why the gas needs to be circulating yet, but apparently convection alone might not be adequate. Is there reason to believe that this movement extracts used gas molecules away from the metal surface allowing fresh input? Or, do you suspect that this movement is required to take away heat from the reaction sites? I am fascinated to hear that you have several replication attempts being conducted. It should be obvious to anyone that LENR is at work in your design when the behavior continues for a long time period and this might be the demonstration we have been waiting for. Even the most profound skeptic would have a difficult time explaining how you must be cheating. Of course, they can always suggest that some RF generator is driving the sphere from afar. I suppose that someone with a tightly closed mind can always propose a method of some nature. Dave -----Original Message----- From: DJ Cravens <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 6:34 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo I was using Sm Co based magnetic powder. Curie point around 700C but it is only useable up to about 250C. (I expect some degradation of the material in hot H/D gas. Remember the old parking lot demo at ICCF-4 with the Samarium cobalt? I can't remember the couple's name at the moment. I am not sure about the thermal runaway. I have never been over 150C with it. (limits of my calorimeter and plastic parts). I would think that the Al bead bath would be a fairly good heat sink. Remember the transfer to the sink goes up with temp differentials. One of the "replicators" has made their own hot bead bath and will be trying at elevated temperatures. My first inclination was to submerge the whole thing into aerogel and a dewar. But, as Les Case found out, you have to have a thermal gradient or you have to circulate the gas through the powder .... or, as I am doing now, use some external stimulation for non-equilibrium hydrogen/deuterium. I am seeing a better results with a little D in with the H for Ni systems. D2 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:19:13 -0400 Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering how to compare this list of numbers with the observation at the conference. This result makes me curious as to whether or not the device reaches thermal run away at some drive temperature. Perhaps the components you have chosen tend to fall apart before the required drive temperature is achieved. This demonstration should make an impact upon those who witness it provided they believe that it runs for the extended time you mention. Is there any chance that you can construct one that hold together thermally until run away begins? I suspect that the magnetic source powder would fail before that temperature is reached. In that case, would a large external field perform the required task? Dave -----Original Message----- From: DJ Cravens <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 5:55 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo oops you are right K I convert them over as I was doing some kinetic fits. Sorry From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:51:13 +0200 Aren’t thetemperatures below in K instead °C? I’m pretty sure the water bath wasn’tat 397°C … neither 292°C From:DJ Cravens [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: vendredi 20 septembre 201323:14 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens reporton NI Week demo E vs. temp was not done at thedemo. However below are some typical (average) values from some old lab runs. I did not "calibrate" at the demo. I only showed that thesample was warmer than the control. That was the only point that was attemptedthere so there was no claim of amount of energy but it was around 4watts. I did not want to confuse things and there was no time tocalibrate. Just one sphere was hotter than its environment- that was it. The important point is that excess increases with temperature. You may want wait till the next issue of IE comes out to see someempirical models (Letts, in #112) for better data. Letts has fittedhundreds of data sets. temp C excess W 292 0.2 312 0.6 332 1.2 352 3.9 372 6.2 397 7.1 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo From: [email protected] Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:00:27 -0400 It isnot clear how any form of energy gain is associated with thisexperiment. The demonstration appears to generate LENR energy,but the input function is not present. It would be educational to have aplot of energy generation versus temperature. Dave -----OriginalMessage----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Sep 20, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cravens report on NI Week demo -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton Jed Rothwell wrote: > http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NIWeekCravens.pdf >> Such a simple, magnificent demonstration. "Can you make me a charger for my Tesla car?" Charming. Indeed it is - and understated since the hot sphere transfers heat to the bed and to the control - so the actual gain is more than it appears. ... hey, Terry - are you the proud owner of a Tesla (or just wishing you were)?
