Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive...should read... The coefficient of reactivity can never be positive.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Axil-- >> >> Fission reactors with water cooling generally have a negative temperature >> feedback and are much safer than metal coolant reactors with positive >> temperature feedback. However, metal cooled reactors have been designed >> and worked ok. With good design even a positive temperature feedback may >> work. >> > > In a uranium reactor, U238 provides the negative temperature control > through Doppler broadening. > > > http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Nuclear%20reactor%20stability%20and%20controllability_1314016641_2.pdf > > Light water absorbs more neutrons then heavy water and sodium hardly > absorbs any neutrons (fast ones) at all. > > Designing a fission reactor requires a lot of experience and education. > > Positive coefficient of reactivity can never be positive. That is inviting > a possibility of super criticality. A reactor that can go super critical > cannot be licensed. > > In a QM system things happen so fast it would be harder to control than in >> a fission reactor. The key for control may be to limit the size of the QM >> system that reacts at any time, or increase the response time of >> the initiator--may the on-off pulse of the magnetic field in the case of >> the Pd and Ni systems. >> > > The DGT LENR reactor is only supercritical when the spark is arcing. > But when the spark is off, that reactor returns to sub criticality. > > DGT tossed Rossi out of their deal because his reactor can go super > critical. DGT designed their home grown reactor to be inherently safe > through sub criticality just like all fission reactors. > > >> >> Bob >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:04 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >> >> What is the course of an open ender positive feedback loop without limit. >> An eventual explosion. Nothing lasts forever in a positive feedback loop. >> There is always a limit to everything. >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Interesting. But how does the net field become large unless some >>> mechanism coordinates the destruction of the balls? Many random direction >>> vectors yields near zero sums. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:55 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >>> >>> Yes, there is a load of fun in this sort of speculation. One >>> possibility is that micro sized magnetic balls as described by DGT that >>> start small and grow to huge power until they explode could produce a >>> varying magnetic field that would induce a current through changing >>> magnetic flux.. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> That brings back fond memories. He does say e.m.f. which makes me >>>> wonder how he performed that measurement. I would anticipate that he must >>>> use at least two probes to come to that conclusion and his active material >>>> hopefully does not short out the voltage. >>>> >>>> Another possibility is that he measured a large magnetic field which he >>>> assumes must be as a result of DC current flowing. Since DC current or AC >>>> for that matter requires a loop voltage in order to flow, it makes sense to >>>> believe that an e.m.f. is present. Actually, an e.m.f. should be present >>>> in that case and what Rossi states below about an expert observing it falls >>>> into line. >>>> >>>> I find myself wondering if there are other good ways to achieve very >>>> high strength magnetic fields without currents flowing. Permanent magnets >>>> offer a clue. >>>> >>>> I am guessing here and attempting to decode Rossi speak at the same >>>> time. That has its hazards! :-) >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:25 pm >>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >>>> >>>> Andrea Rossi >>>> > December 30th, 2012 at 3:01 PM >>>> > >>>> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=771&cpage=4#comment-514345 >>>> >>>> Dear Bernie Koppenhofer: >>>> You are touching a very important point: during these very days, and >>>> also >>>> during the more recent tests, we are working on this issue. I think >>>> we will >>>> be able to produce directly e.m.f. , but much work has to be done. >>>> Actually, we already produced direct e.m.f. with the reactors at high >>>> temperature, and we measured it with the very precise measurement >>>> instrumentation introduced by the third party expert, but we are not >>>> ready >>>> for an industrial production, while we are at a high level of >>>> industrialization for the production of heat and, at this point , >>>> also of >>>> high temperature steam, which is the gate to the Carnot Cycle. Thank >>>> you >>>> for your good comment. >>>> Warm Regards, >>>> A.R. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I believe that heat is not the only product of the LENR reaction. It >>>>> may not even the most important sink for LENR power generation. I believe >>>>> that electron production is a major magnification of over unity power >>>>> generation. >>>>> Rossi indicated that there was an unknown source of current production >>>>> in his reactor and he was looking into how this could happen. >>>>> I know that the PAPP engine produced current out of whole cloth. The >>>>> design of the engine depended on it. >>>>> Here is my take on where these electrons are coming from. When the >>>>> magnetic field strength gets strong enough, mesons are condensed out of >>>>> the >>>>> vacuum. The final decay products of mesons are electrons. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I also find it amazing that DGT seems to overlook the implications >>>>>> of their discovery. It reminds me of not seeing the forest through the >>>>>> trees. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since Rossi made an earlier claim that he might be able to generate >>>>>> electricity directly by some obscure discovery, I suspect that he >>>>>> realized >>>>>> the importance of the large magnetic fields residing within his device. >>>>>> So >>>>>> far he has kept this type of information private, carefully leaking out >>>>>> the >>>>>> news of some non specific discovery. Rossi knows when to release >>>>>> findings >>>>>> that might assist competitors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:23 pm >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Christopher H. Cooper" >>>>>> >>>>>> Like you, any one of us can only do so much of what is required. >>>>>> To come up with an all inclusive theory, we must trust the word and the >>>>>> work done by others. >>>>>> >>>>>> I must admit that I trust DGT. So far, their experimental observation >>>>>> about magnetic field strength has no impact on the theory (HEMI) that >>>>>> they >>>>>> put forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> They have no theroritical based interest in misleading us to advance >>>>>> their theory base on Dr. Kims work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Like us, DGT is simply amazed at the magnetic nature of their >>>>>> experimental find but have not connected it to HEMI in any way. This is >>>>>> hard to understand. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the part of DGT, there is no self interest in tossing an almost >>>>>> unbelievable finding into their finding and in fact this finding >>>>>> undercuts >>>>>> HEMI. >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact such a finding is a major distraction. They really need to do >>>>>> a major rethink of their experimental position on HEMI and BEC as per Dr. >>>>>> Kim. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Edmund Storms >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > These Nanoplasmonic experiments with uranium can be done >>>>>>> inexpensively, why can't Ed replicate these experiments? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because I have only two hands and no financial support. If you want >>>>>>> this replicated, I suggest you hire someone to do this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed Storms >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
