This may be an opinion not held by many, but I believe that DGT has solved the control problem. This is a fallout of how the two different pumping methods work.
It seems like a simple matter to add a thermostat to the design. The max safe temperature is reached as determined by the thermostat, the pumping power is turned off. In the Rossi system, the heat from the primary heater, interferes with the operation of the thermostat and Rossi must run his reactor blind without feed back. In the DGT reactor control method, the low temperature state is detected by a thermostat and a arc pulse is triggered. All the pumping required to reverse the fall in reactor temperature is delivered in 20 milliseconds. The reactor's temperature begins to rise like a ball hit with a bat. The path of the ball is well defined by the laws of physics and its the temperature rise profile is the same without exception. This is DGT's big advantage. Precise reaction control and safety will in the end make DGT the leader in LENR reactor market share. On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > From Axil: > > > > ... > > > > > This lack of control has never been solved and is one reason why Rossi's > > > reactor has not been certified and released as a safe product that does > > > not explode. > > > > I agree. > > > > Regardless of what theory might best explain the excess heat being > generated from Rossi's device, I know I have come to a similar conclusion > in the sense that, IMHO, he has yet to engineer a practical way of > controlling the reaction. Without a practical way of controlling the > reaction, without a reliable On and Off switch, the device has no hope of > being commercialized. > > > > What saddens me is not the personal opinion that Rossi has yet to find a > reliable way to control the device. I'm frustrated by the apparent fact > that the lack of controllability appears to be used as an excuse, as > justification exploited by skeptics and debunkers to continue to ignore the > more extraordinary fact that excess heat that cannot be accounted for by > any known chemical means is nevertheless happening. Kind of a shell game > going on here. > > > > I still believe there is very good chance that eventually the equivalent > of an On and Off switch will be worked out. It strikes me mostly as just > another engineering challenge that needs to be tackled with a sufficient > amount of financial backing. So... In time. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks >
