Axil, David etal--
I would have guessed that a vapor of Li metal (I am not sure a plasma would
occur) may be a fairly good heat transfer agent, much like He works as a
cooling fluid. I would be surprised if there were a 200 degree delta T between
the edge of the reactor and its center.
Delta T across the alumina vessel may be that 200 degrees, if the energy
transfer is by photons generated by the reaction directly, rather than by
lattice stimulation of the reacting material with its IR radiation, most of the
heat may deposited in the reactor vessel (alumina) or escape through the vessel
to the outside surroundings. Maybe Dave's calculation would be able to say
what the delta T across the alumina would be with a given heat flux assuming
published heat transfer coeff's for alumina.
Helium gas is a good heat transfer agent and Li, being of low mass, would be
almost as good.
My thought about the reactor design is as follows:
1. The reactive material, Ni or some alloy of Ni is free in the vessel along
with Li metal.
2. The external energy supply is an inductance heater as well as supplying an
oscillating magnetic field--which is controlled to effect resonant conditions.
3. The reactants, Li and Ni nano particles, reach a temperature where the LENR
happens when the magnetic field is appropriate and resonances match.
4. The reaction causes the release of photons of determined energy (a function
of the magnetic field) with a change in the nuclear structure of the Li and the
Ni isotopes reacting. These photons are relatively low energy and not gammas
seen in classical nuclear transitions associated with high kinetic energy
reactions or transitions of excited radioactive isotopes.
5. The temperature, or the combination of temperature and magnetic field
strength, in the Ni nano particles control the rate of the reaction via a
negative temperature coeff. much like a water cooled, U fueled, fission
reactor.
6. As the free reactants are used up or become "glued" to the reactor vessel so
that free mixing of the Ni and the Li is no longer possible, the LENR stops.
7. The electrical leads are not inconel, but are tungsten or other high
temperature electrical conductor. I would not expect that corrosion is an
issue with the alumina or the reactants. The wire conductors would have to
hold up in a Li, nano Ni hot gas environment, however. Free O would be a
problem for corrosion and may change the Ni so as to become non-reactive.
Bob Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
Dear David,
It might be informative if your model could be modified to check the heat
production of the nickel particles and their temperature and the flow of that
heat from the central channel that encloses the nickel particles to the outside
edge of the reactor some centimeters away so that that temperature is
maintained at a steady 1400C.
It seems to me intuitively that the temperature of those particles being less
than one gram in weight can support the 1400C external temperature without
approaching a temperature that is beyond the melting point of nickel.
I figure that there is a delta T of about 200C involved between the heat
production zone and the outside edge of the reactor. That puts the nickel
particles at 1600C or greater. The particles should have all melted. Something
does not make sense in this regard considering that these nickel particles are
receiving 900 watts of thermal stimulation in addition to the heat that they
are generating through the LENR reaction.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:13 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
The three phase connection is not too surprising if we assume that many
more of these units are to be mounted in a complete system. It would be extra
work for Rossi to construct a new device using only one phase for the
scientists to measure. I give him a pass on this point.
In the past I have dedicated a great deal of effort toward proving that the
input power can be calculated by only considering the fundamental component of
the input current. Power from a sinewave source can only be extracted by the
current that is flowing at the same frequency as the source voltage. You can
look this up in text books if you are curious. Briefly, power delivered from a
sine wave source is determined by taking the product of the RMS voltage at that
frequency and multiplying it by the RMS current at the same frequency while
taking the phase difference into account. Any DC or harmonic currents entering
the device due to internal effects are not able to change that calculation
except for how they might enter into changing the current at the fundamental.
I have made spice models of the current problem that you are mentioning and
proved that this assertion is accurate. Remember that the same issue arose
after the last test.
Every indication is that the input power was measured accurately.
It may not be quite as simple as some believe to achieve stable power
control for the CATs. My simulation indicates that the COP changes throughout
the input and hence output power range. The incremental COP is at a maximum
below the power at which the overall COP reaches it peak. And, to complicate
matters, the overall COP actually falls once the peak level is exceeded. This
can be viewed as a type of negative resistance region. I am still reviewing
the model to better understand the implications.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lynn <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 5:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
All fair points of view Dave. Though with regard to 3 phase, at 900W input
there is obviously no need, adds a lot of mechanical complexity (3 heater wires
rather than 1) and a little more electrical complexity and would still get
impulsive waveform using rectified DC + half H bridge to provide an ac pwm
output - really simple linear power control that is dead simple to measure and
control power output of, with much greater scope for variation of pulse
frequency and duration. I doubt you or any other engineer or electrician would
choose to do it the crude and restrictive way he has.
Haven't tackled the electrical side of things much; but as an EE would you
agree that conceptually it would be possible to hide a >10kHz AC signal
superimposed on the grid supplied 3phase with amplitude a little less than the
AC so as not to trigger the Triac turn off? (Hardware pretty simple, just 50%
duty cycle driven half-H bridge of phase added to the 50Hz signal by means of a
series transformer). My rough calculation suggest that could allow 3x the
power to be delivered to the reactor without showing up on the PCE meter or
having any DC component. Not that I think it likely (far too much potential
for getting caught by someone with a multimeter or oscilloscope), but if the
power meters were known to have a max frequency threshold then could this allow
you to deliver more power without it being easily spotted?
On 16 October 2014 16:12, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
Sorry Robert, I will make every attempt to use your correct name in the
future. Thanks for clarifying your reasons for exhibiting the strong critical
position against the report.
I admit that I harbor questions about the accuracy of the temperature
measurements for many of the reasons that you point out. To me the slope in
COP with temperature and the particle analysis are strong indicators that the
device is generating some type of nuclear power within its core. I can not
honestly believe that Rossi would be attempting a scam as you seem to
think...he risks far too much. One tiny slip and he is toast.
I recall reading in his blog that Ni62 was the active element from a
couple of years back. At that time he was talking of developing a process that
enriched the raw material in order to achieve that goal. Could that have been
what he thought was happening within his reactor at the time? That would
explain why he bought some of that isotope for research. I give him the
benefit of the doubt.
The 3 phase power concern just does not hold water to me. Remember the
device tested is not normally used in isolation, but instead is a part of a
much larger system. Phase balancing is quite common when a large amount of
power is required and I would likely have done exactly the same thing as Rossi.
There are other reasons that I believe the test proves that power is
generated within the core that I have covered previously and will not repeat at
this time since it is late here.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lynn <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 2:20 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
(Dave, my granddad is Bob, I'm Robert :) ), I would be over the moon if
we had incontrovertible evidence of >COP, but with a strong grounding in and
respect for the scientific method you cannot and should not ever give bold
assertions a free ride without vigorous critical review the skeptics of the
world won't go any easier on him than I will. Which is what I am trying to
provide, and unfortunately the harder I have looked at it and the more issues I
have analysed the more likely it seems that the gain = 1 hypothesis is as
strong as gain >1.
Occams razor would then favour gain=1 rather than a collection of
miraculously fortuitous LENR characteristics that include numerous
transmutation pathways (fission and fusion of Ni and Li) without ionising
radiation, or change in reaction rate as it goes from natural isotope ratios to
essentially all Li6+Ni2, But my suspicions really shot through the roof after
reading that Rossi bought 99% Ni62 from a commercial supplier at one point -
and that is why I decided to look so hard at the physical attributes of the
device (thermodynamics/hightemp materials are my forte) - to see whether it was
thermodynamically unabiguous that there was gain >1.
The needless ambiguity of the test raises my ire, that the power input is
so clumsily measured when it would be so easy to use series resistors, triac
switched single phase AC, PWM DC power supply or etc with the same
electromagnetic effects within the reactor. Rossi with his resources could get
someone to make such an unambiguous power supply/meter in a day - but as usual
he has chosen the dark path of deliberate obfuscation. Likewise with the lack
of thermocouples or proper flow calorimetry - so easy when the COP and power
output are large.
But back to the physical problems:
-The major red flag is that of inconel heating wire temp being
necessarily <1300-1350°C (and realistically probably lower) while thermography
is claiming 1412°C surface temps screams out that there is a massive error in
the calorimetry, rendering the claims of gain meaningless unless or until that
error can be explained satisfactorily. Hopeful theories about refractories
wires etc just don't stand up to practical considerations (joining them to
inconel that will anyway be melted at joint, forming these horribly brittle
materials, keeping them away from air).
-Knowing that the alumina is translucent also opens up so many
possibilities for errors - and the translucence is unknown and unquantified for
the material used over the range of temperatures and for the range of
wavelengths of emitted light created by hot embedded wires - claims of it not
being a problem don't hold water due to the above demonstrated/known error in
the reactor temperature. We have no idea how much porosity it has, how thin it
is, or what surface impurities might accumulate during long term high
temperature operation to alter emissivity/translucence etc.
-That I have identified a likely construction for the reactor that gives
the visual results seen during testing (glowing wires wrapped around inner
tube, but with minimal and variable contact quenching bought on by differential
thermal expansion), all encased in outer shell), with no reactor gain only
increases the strength of the gain=0 hypothesis.
This could all be fixed easily by Rossi releasing more details of
construction - even photos of cut-open reactor or just doing a proper
independent black box test with good calorimetry. But as ever he is playing
games due to paranoia, perverseness or worse motives. He could have made
billions by now and the world would be massively better off if he wasn't
persisting in his school-boy intrigues.
On 16 October 2014 12:25, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
Bob, you appear to be too convinced that the gain is unity and are
going to great lengths to obtain that result. The testers are well respected
scientists and no one should assume that they are so easily misslead. Besides,
there are several measurements that support the fact that the COP is greater
than unity which you seem to brush off.
I wonder about whether or not the actual temperature is correct as
well, but am in no position to prove one way or the other. The most important
observation that supports the elevated COP is the slope of output power versus
input power that they measure about their chosen operating point. I can think
of no way to fake that measurement without a dose of true magic. And then it
would be extremely difficult to understand why the measured behavior tends to
follow what my simulation predicts.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Lynn <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 11:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:temperature of the resistor wire.
Nullis in verba. :) I believe my eyes more than others words. In
finding so many potential faults with so little published information (they had
a month to investigate!!) I can only say that I am unimpressed by the critical
observational skills of the testers. If they had approached this demo with a
more critical mindset I might be more inclined to believe them.
On 16 October 2014 11:41, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for posting your ideas.
I hadn't seen that picture of the march 2013 reactor sitting on the
scale with heating coils visible.
Why don't we just accept that the authors of the 2014 test also know
enough about the construction of the reactor to say that the dark bands align
with the wires?
Harry
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote:
I wrote up my analysis of the "banding" : (Draft -- I'll rename it
later).
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_141014a.php
Short answer : we don't even know whether the bright bands line up
with the wires, or the gaps between them.
There are multiple explanations, which depend on the structure used
to hold the wires, and on the properties of everything.
Insufficient data !!!!!
