Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the simulation results. The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a COP of 6. In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the gain and also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with drive. Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the thermal capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the heat energy flows. One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong shock is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to reverse direction. Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero and stable operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs at an important time. This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues to insist that he can not use the heat output of an ECAT to drive additional ones. The slow response time of the ECAT driver would not constitute a thermal shock that could control the operation of its brothers. An electric or gas heater can respond rapidly enough to achieve the desired results. Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while many of the other vorts seem to question them. I guess my confidence in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance. If he were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be advantageous? How would extending this claim make him more of a dud? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 4:50 pm Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device. The last version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation mechanism depended upon the core temperature as a second order function. The latest trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this temperature dependency to be of the third power. I was curious as to how much more critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it a test run. I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the core to the brink of critical run away temperature. This would not be acceptable unless an active cooling method was also available that could extract heat rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great. Rossi may have something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not evident. The power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10% during this test run. If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61. I noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has stated within his journal. With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that I could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak temperature excursion of the device. In the earlier experiment with the temperature dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and I achieved a good level with the first attempt. The implication of my modeling is that it is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that follows this general rule would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if the design contains a reasonable geometry and has the internal thermal resistances properly adjusted. If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional relationship of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can adjust the model to match the real world more closely. At this point it appears that Rossi is playing conservative and safe with his claimed COP of 6. He may eventually raise this level to be more competitive with others and there is room for adjustment especially if a good technique is used to actively cool the core. The usual disclaimer applies to this document. The model is for educational purposes only and may not reflect upon real device operational characteristics. Dave P.S. Contact me directly if you want further details about the model or its behavior.
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess my confidence in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance. If he were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be advantageous? How would extending this claim make him more of a dud? I had a similar experience with a reactionless drive technology. http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9243cid=576230 When the kook provides you with actual data that you can analyze, and then infer things about the device that cross-check with reality in a way that is unlikely to have been confabulated by the kook, it has to make you take the kook more seriously.
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while many of the other vorts seem to question them. I guess my confidence in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance. . . . I hope no one here objects to your speculation. If they do, I object to their objection! You are not supporting Rossi. Neither am I. We both have good reasons to think that his claims are probably real. (Although who knows about the latest claim.) We all know there are other reasons to doubt these claims. The reasons to believe are mainly technical. The reasons to doubt are mainly political, or based on Rossi's appearance or behavior. This forum is mainly devoted to technical issues, so it seems to me we should devote most of the discussion to the former. In a scientific discussion no one who says let's suppose or what if should be called a supporter. People who say that do not understand the concepts of open-minded inquiry, or suspending judgement. These things are essential. Science, technology and progress would not exist without them. Every single thing discovered since the stone age seemed improbable at first. Many things seemed miraculous. Imagine how people must have felt when they first mastered fire. Imagine how people from 1800 would feel looking around our world. Remember Clarke's 2nd and 3rd laws: 1. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 2. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Great stuff Dave. On the face of it, this Rossi reaction control mechanism seems primitive and problematic. Do you have additional details? When the reaction is operating at 1200C, what level of temperature spike is required to reverse a dropping reaction temperature profile? Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? How long does the reaction take to respond to the temperature spike? What causes the reaction temperature to fall? How long does the reaction take to regain stability? How much power does the external temperature impulse consume in a 10 KW system? How much heat loss from pore insolation can the reactor tolerate? Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the simulation results. The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a COP of 6. In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the gain and also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with drive. Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the thermal capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the heat energy flows. One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong shock is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to reverse direction. Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero and stable operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs at an important time. This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues to insist that he can not use the heat output of an ECAT to drive additional ones. The slow response time of the ECAT driver would not constitute a thermal shock that could control the operation of its brothers. An electric or gas heater can respond rapidly enough to achieve the desired results. Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while many of the other vorts seem to question them. I guess my confidence in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance. If he were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be advantageous? How would extending this claim make him more of a dud? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 4:50 pm Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device. The last version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation mechanism depended upon the core temperature as a second order function. The latest trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this temperature dependency to be of the third power. I was curious as to how much more critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it a test run. I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the core to the brink of critical run away temperature. This would not be acceptable unless an active cooling method was also available that could extract heat rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great. Rossi may have something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not evident. The power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10% during this test run. If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61. I noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has stated within his journal. With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that I could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak temperature excursion of the device. In the earlier experiment with the temperature dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and I achieved a good level with the first attempt. The implication of my modeling is that it is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that follows this general rule would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if the design contains a reasonable geometry and has the internal thermal resistances properly adjusted. If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional relationship of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can adjust the model to match the real world more closely. At this point it appears that Rossi is playing conservative and safe with his claimed COP of 6. He may eventually raise this level to be more competitive with others and there is room for adjustment especially if a good technique is used to actively cool the core. The usual disclaimer applies to this document. The model is for educational purposes
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission, fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...I would think it would be very hard to wrestle that pig to the ground (I grew up on a farm)... On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Great stuff Dave. On the face of it, this Rossi reaction control mechanism seems primitive and problematic. Do you have additional details? When the reaction is operating at 1200C, what level of temperature spike is required to reverse a dropping reaction temperature profile? Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? How long does the reaction take to respond to the temperature spike? What causes the reaction temperature to fall? How long does the reaction take to regain stability? How much power does the external temperature impulse consume in a 10 KW system? How much heat loss from pore insolation can the reactor tolerate? Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the simulation results. The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a COP of 6. In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the gain and also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with drive. Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the thermal capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the heat energy flows. One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong shock is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to reverse direction. Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero and stable operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs at an important time. This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues to insist that he can not use the heat output of an ECAT to drive additional ones. The slow response time of the ECAT driver would not constitute a thermal shock that could control the operation of its brothers. An electric or gas heater can respond rapidly enough to achieve the desired results. Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while many of the other vorts seem to question them. I guess my confidence in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance. If he were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be advantageous? How would extending this claim make him more of a dud? Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 4:50 pm Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device. The last version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation mechanism depended upon the core temperature as a second order function. The latest trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this temperature dependency to be of the third power. I was curious as to how much more critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it a test run. I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the core to the brink of critical run away temperature. This would not be acceptable unless an active cooling method was also available that could extract heat rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great. Rossi may have something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not evident. The power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10% during this test run. If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61. I noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has stated within his journal. With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that I could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak temperature excursion of the device. In the earlier experiment with the temperature dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and I achieved a good level with the first attempt. The implication of my modeling is that it is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that follows this general rule would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if the design contains a reasonable geometry and has the internal thermal resistances properly adjusted. If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional relationship of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can adjust the model to match
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . . Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be uniform. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent solid. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . . Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be uniform. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Axil, the only details that I have are the ones that have been published on Rossi's Journal and other public information. My model is based upon some assumptions that I will attempt to explain. I would like very much for you or others to contribute to the simulation if possible. The first question I can only answer from results of my model which match Rossi's discussions. He states that the drive power is applied at a 50% duty cycle and its level is one third of the total output power. If you take his recent typical output power of 10 kW, that means that it has a drive waveform of .33 watts with a duty cycle of 50%. So, it typically takes that much power input drop to reverse the rising temperature waveform. My model agrees with this number. The model suggests that the device has an unstable point at a bit more than half of this level of output and that positive feedback is causing most of the rise in power output until the reversal. Once heading downward, the temperature curve and associated power output continue until again driven by the .33 watt waveform. The reason for this behavior was murky at first since I did not understand why a relatively low drive power would reverse the process. Further simulations pointed to the thermal capacity of the device as the reason. The loss of this amount of drive starved the heat being absorbed by the thermal capacity of the unit just enough to force the rising curve to reverse. This was a very interesting result. The device response timing is unknown in detail unless we can shake it out of Rossi. It must be fast enough to outrun the rising temperature waveform that wants to supply the thermal capacity. I used a convenient value of thermal capacity to allow time for the waveforms to be visible in my simulator. There is some really interesting phenomena hidden within this model. Your question about heat loss causing problems is related to the thermal impedance of the device to ambient. Once a value has been realized, there will be a slope of power output versus temperature where the product of the two functions is 1. The temperature associated with this point is where the positive feedback takes over. This is the traditional point where the loop gain is 1. I have some model details to follow soon. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Great stuff Dave. On the face of it, this Rossi reaction control mechanismseems primitive and problematic. Do you have additional details? When the reaction is operating at 1200C, what level oftemperature spike is required to reverse a dropping reaction temperatureprofile? Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above1450C at any point? How long does thereaction take to respond to the temperature spike? What causes the reactiontemperature to fall? How long does the reaction take to regain stability? How much power does the external temperature impulseconsume in a 10 KW system? How much heat loss from pore insolation can thereactor tolerate? Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the simulation results. The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a COP of 6. In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the gain and also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with drive. Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the thermal capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the heat energy flows. One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong shock is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to reverse direction. Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero and stable operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs at an important time. This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues to insist that he can not use the heat output of an ECAT to drive additional ones. The slow response time of the ECAT driver would not constitute a thermal shock that could control the operation of its brothers. An electric or gas heater can respond rapidly enough to achieve the desired results. Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims while many of the other vorts seem to question them. I guess my confidence in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model performance. If he were totally full of *** then why insist upon a COP that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be advantageous? How would extending this claim make him more of a dud? Dave
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission, fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities... Someone is beating you to the draw: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Some model concepts: First, if we assume that there is a functional relationship between the power output of a mass of Rossi's material and the temperature to which it is subjected there will be a slope to that curve around the operating temperature. A test fixture might be constructed that allows us to heat the material to a desired temperature and then measure the total power output with a calorimeter. The ideal fixture would have a very low value of thermal resistance to ambient so that the material being tested would not become unstable and overheat. We would construct the desired curve by taking the difference between the total output power and the drive, which we usually refer to as excess power. If lucky, the curve can be constructed over a large range of temperature, especially covering the region of operation for the ECAT. My model allows me to choose any functional relationship that is measured. I have conducted test runs on linear, second, third, forth, and exponential functions. All seem to behave in a similar manner, but it is evident that the higher order curves make things more critical to adjust, but not impossible. It would be grand if the actual curve associated with Rossi's combination of mix and gas were measured. Once a curve has been chosen, there are important parameters that define the behavior of the system. The first derivative of the curve defines a form of gain that ties a differential change in temperature to a differential change in output power. This can be translated to mean that a 1 degree change in temperature causes a 10 (example) watt change in output power at some temperature. If the thermal resistance of the ECAT is set to .1 degree K per watt then a product of the two yields 1. This is the critical temperature where the device becomes unstable. A noise level increase in device temperature results in a larger drive which proceeds toward some upper power point where the device either self destructs or limits. The process is slowed down by the necessity to heat the device materials as the temperature increases. This is where my model has a thermal capacity as a parameter. The real world devices also take time to heat up which allows the control waveform to function. This model behavior thus has several characteristics that mimic real life. First, a certain minimum amount of heat must be delivered to the active core in order to allow the combined system to reach the critical temperature. Operation below the critical temperature results in very low COP, which is not desired. The demonstration of Celani's device was an example of operation within this region. So we choose a drive power that allows the device to reach critical temperature and a bit extra for control. The drive is applied and the temperature rises and the critical point is reached where the positive feedback takes over. At this time, the temperature begins an exponential rise toward infinity. The heat output increases rapidly due to the high order dependency. The output power ramps ups and we decide that it is time to reverse the direction of the temperature curve. A carefully timed drive power drop to zero is orchestrated and the output power begins to fall downward toward zero. The stop timing is critical if we are to have a high COP. A super carefully timed edge can result in a long delay period where the output power is just barely heading downward. This of course will result in a large COP, but the stability would be difficult to maintain. I prefer to have margin in my model runs and accept a reasonable COP, where 6 is fairly typical as in Rossi's statements. The power output is heading downward after the reversal and that is again reversed by the reapplication of the drive waveform. The process repeats from this point forward. Operation of the device is restricted to be within the unstable positive feedback region if one is interested in a reasonable COP. I tend to keep the output power near the upper point of no return so that the COP is maintained less than 10, but more than 6. I wanted to mention one observation that is fairly important. If you set the upper turn around timing extremely critically, it is possible to get a very large COP. The reason is that the time constants associated with the thermal resistance and capacitance become quite large. The timing is as critical as it is large however and the system is balanced upon a sharp edge. It typically does not take long for the positive feedback to dominate and the curve begins a rapid decent. I hope this helps to explain the model I am using for my simulations. Dave
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
In-situ HRTEM obeservations of CNT tip growth in a small gas-reaction CVD cell of nickel nanoparticle catalyst reveal that the nickel nanoparticle was changing shape indicating that they were in liquid form at a temperature of 600C. I suspect iron nanoparticles would also be in liquid state very near this temperature; and forget about copper, it would be melted at much lower temps. That is why I am still of the opinion that Rossi's 1000C or 1200C ecats, if real, must be Carbon nanostructure based. No metal nanoparticle NAE, cavity, voids, and vacancies will survive 1000C, let alone 1200C without signiificant deformations of the nanocavities that house your NAE. Even refractory metals like tungsten in nanopowder form would probably start sintering and migrating at these levels. Can anyone think of a metal in nanopowder form that will not start to sinter at 1200C? Only carbon nanostructures will survive these temps. Hence, when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth. Rossi's cats MUST be carbon nanostructure-based. And once more, time will prove me right about this. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent solid. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . . Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be uniform. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
I hear what you are saying JoJo, but Rossi says he will use natural gas only for external power in his 1200C reactor. This means that the reactor is still thermionic in nature (No nanotubes). He could be using tungsten carbide as the micro powder(4 microns) to avoid sintering. Cheer: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** In-situ HRTEM obeservations of CNT tip growth in a small gas-reaction CVD cell of nickel nanoparticle catalyst reveal that the nickel nanoparticle was changing shape indicating that they were in liquid form at a temperature of 600C. I suspect iron nanoparticles would also be in liquid state very near this temperature; and forget about copper, it would be melted at much lower temps. That is why I am still of the opinion that Rossi's 1000C or 1200C ecats, if real, must be Carbon nanostructure based. No metal nanoparticle NAE, cavity, voids, and vacancies will survive 1000C, let alone 1200C without signiificant deformations of the nanocavities that house your NAE. Even refractory metals like tungsten in nanopowder form would probably start sintering and migrating at these levels. Can anyone think of a metal in nanopowder form that will not start to sinter at 1200C? Only carbon nanostructures will survive these temps. Hence, when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth. Rossi's cats MUST be carbon nanostructure-based. And once more, time will prove me right about this. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:49 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent solid. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . . Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be uniform. - Jed
[Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Terry, That is a good paper that I need to reference. I see it more like alot of different research/results are pointing us in a common direction. I am trying to piece together alot of observations and other theories, some from astro physics and some from nuclear physics and some from just plain old engineering sense logic. Unexpectedly, I have also scared myself a bit by what I think the reaction might be, what it implies and how to make it safe when you scale it up. There is a reason that it is taking taking decades to produce a device that is stable. Many very smart people have built devices that worked at one time and yet they were not able to make it to market. I also see some health issues that concern me with some of the people most involved in the past. Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion reaction. Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their discipline that they close their eyes to others. Just the way I see it. Stewart On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission, fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities... Someone is beating you to the draw: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Axil, This study concludes that tungsten sintering starts at 800-900C http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/td/239/ In particular, check out this statement Densification of tungsten and tungsten with 10 weight percent ceria begins between 800 and 900 ºC and densities greater than 90% can be achieved at temperatures as low as 1500 ºC. I don't know about you but they have confirmed the start of Densification (read: sintering and atom migration), at 800-900C. These are for micron-sized tungsten powders. No, my firend, not even Tungsten will make a suitable metal lattice NAE if Rossi's cats are indeed operating at 1200C. Also, I don't believe the leaked pictures. It is quite convenient for Fioravanti to be involved in the leak. I think Rossi was the one who authorized the release of that Leaked photo to misdirect. I don't think that leaked photo has anything to do with his real cats. Using gas for heating is also questionable. I think Rossi is feeling the heat from other replicators that he needs to quickly misdirect with this leaked photo and gas nonsense. Even this 1200C operating temp might be a misdirection, cause this is beginning to look more and more impossible considering the thermal properties of many metals. A stainless steel reactor at 1200C would not be able to hold much pressure, let alone hydrogen at these temps and high pressures. Hydrogen embrittlement attack rates at these temps accelerate rapidly. Whatever thermionic catalyst he had in his original cats would be useless at 1200C, that's for sure. So, his process must be radically different now. Once again, if you accept that Rossi is operating at 1200C, then you have to accept the logical conclusion stemming from that statement, that is, that he is using Carbon nanostructures. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency I hear what you are saying JoJo, but Rossi says he will use natural gas only for external power in his 1200C reactor. This means that the reactor is still thermionic in nature (No nanotubes). He could be using tungsten carbide as the micro powder(4 microns) to avoid sintering. Cheer: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: In-situ HRTEM obeservations of CNT tip growth in a small gas-reaction CVD cell of nickel nanoparticle catalyst reveal that the nickel nanoparticle was changing shape indicating that they were in liquid form at a temperature of 600C. I suspect iron nanoparticles would also be in liquid state very near this temperature; and forget about copper, it would be melted at much lower temps. That is why I am still of the opinion that Rossi's 1000C or 1200C ecats, if real, must be Carbon nanostructure based. No metal nanoparticle NAE, cavity, voids, and vacancies will survive 1000C, let alone 1200C without signiificant deformations of the nanocavities that house your NAE. Even refractory metals like tungsten in nanopowder form would probably start sintering and migrating at these levels. Can anyone think of a metal in nanopowder form that will not start to sinter at 1200C? Only carbon nanostructures will survive these temps. Hence, when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth. Rossi's cats MUST be carbon nanostructure-based. And once more, time will prove me right about this. Jojo - Original Message - From: ChemE Stewart To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Nanopowder typically melts at lower temperatures than its equivalent solid. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Does the maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any point? Ah. Google tells me that is the melting point of Ni . . . Actually, you cannot get close to a melting point without bad stuff happening. Sintering and local melting. The temperature is not likely to be uniform. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:51 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their discipline that they close their eyes to others. When a scientist becomes an expert in his field, he has his entire life invested in the paradigm. It becomes a thing of faith mistaken for knowledge. It would take an epiphany tantamount to a blind man suddenly gaining sight to change. It's a great individual that can admit his entire life's work was flawed. It rarely happens. T
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Thanks Stewart, Yes, I have been saying the same thing for quite a while. Miley showed a long time ago that is was the fission of a compound nucleus. Many nucleons acting as one. How can that be? The nucleus are of Fermi meter dimensions and the inter nuclear spacing is in angstroms? Once again the only way is if the range of the strong nuclear force is extended. My analysis suggests that the spin orbit nuclear-magnetic effect is the actor. I am an Electrical Engineer and I think in terms of fields and forces. Nuclear physicists think in therms of particle like nucleons. I know the magnetic force is not conserved. The spin orbit force must by analogy also be non-conservative. The magnetic field is extend within soft iron. I believe that the nuclear spin orbit force is extended within a vibrating inverse Bose condensate. A condensate of protons. For some reason over the last few days my book has started selling. The article on IE produced no sales. I know not why. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8field-author=Frank%20Znidarsicie=UTF8search-alias=bookssort=relevancerank The mathematics also produced the quantum condition and a unification of Special Relativity and quantum physics. I completed this stuff 10 years ago and adjusted a little since. My experiments have not produced any anomalous energy by I will soon try again with something different. http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/913/Frank,%20Znidarsic%20(new) Frank Znidarsic Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion reaction. Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their discipline that they close their eyes to others. Just the way I see it. Stewart -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 8:22 pm Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency Terry, That is a good paper that I need to reference. I see it more like alot of different research/results are pointing us in a common direction. I am trying to piece together alot of observations and other theories, some from astro physics and some from nuclear physics and some from just plain old engineering sense logic. Unexpectedly, I have also scared myself a bit by what I think the reaction might be, what it implies and how to make it safe when you scale it up. There is a reason that it is taking taking decades to produce a device that is stable. Many very smart people have built devices that worked at one time and yet they were not able to make it to market. I also see some health issues that concern me with some of the people most involved in the past. Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion reaction. Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their discipline that they close their eyes to others. Just the way I see it. Stewart On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission, fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities... Someone is beating you to the draw: http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
When I see/read something like the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova
I think that the magnetic fields created across a void/gap due to charge
concentrations must align the condensate atoms such that the repulsion
between atoms within the condensate is reduced further allowing quantum
gravity to then trigger a collapse and instant, intense radiation and heat
release. I think the effect is most likely enhanced by external
pressure/repulsion from the lattice on the condensate, ultra high densities
and total charge accumulation. I am a chemical guy so think less about
magnetic fields but that seems to an important parameter. Based on that
Papp engine and terrawatt engines I think a lattice is optional, magnetic
field induced across a metallic gap definitely.
Stewart
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, wrote:
Thanks Stewart,
Yes, I have been saying the same thing for quite a while. Miley showed
a long time ago that is was the fission of a compound nucleus.
Many nucleons acting as one. How can that be? The nucleus are of Fermi
meter dimensions and the inter nuclear spacing is in angstroms?
Once again the only way is if the range of the strong nuclear force is
extended. My analysis suggests that the spin orbit nuclear-magnetic effect
is the actor. I am an Electrical Engineer and I think in terms of fields
and forces. Nuclear physicists think in therms of particle like nucleons.
I know the magnetic force is not conserved. The spin orbit force must by
analogy also be non-conservative. The magnetic field is extend within soft
iron. I believe that the nuclear spin orbit force is extended within a
vibrating inverse Bose condensate. A condensate of protons. For some
reason over the last few days my book has started selling. The article on
IE produced no sales. I know not why.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8field-author=Frank%20Znidarsicie=UTF8search-alias=bookssort=relevancerank
The mathematics also produced the quantum condition and a unification of
Special Relativity and quantum physics.
I completed this stuff 10 years ago and adjusted a little since. My
experiments have not produced any anomalous energy by I will soon try again
with something different.
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/913/Frank,%20Znidarsic%20(new)
Frank Znidarsic
Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so
that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought
there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I
think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion
reaction.
Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their
discipline that they close their eyes to others.
Just the way I see it.
Stewart
-Original Message-
From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com');
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'vortex-l@eskimo.com');
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 8:22 pm
Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Terry,
That is a good paper that I need to reference. I see it more like alot
of different research/results are pointing us in a common direction. I am
trying to piece together alot of observations and other theories, some from
astro physics and some from nuclear physics and some from just plain old
engineering sense logic.
Unexpectedly, I have also scared myself a bit by what I think the
reaction might be, what it implies and how to make it safe when you scale
it up. There is a reason that it is taking taking decades to produce a
device that is stable. Many very smart people have built devices that
worked at one time and yet they were not able to make it to market. I also
see some health issues that concern me with some of the people most
involved in the past.
Interestingly, I came across an article from around the year 2000 or so
that mentioned Jed and also mentioned Frank Z. telling Ed Storms he thought
there was a link between cold fusion, superconductivity and gravity. I
think Frank was right and Ed is still looking primarily at a nuclear fusion
reaction.
Sometimes I think scientists seem so bent on one theory that fits their
discipline that they close their eyes to others.
Just the way I see it.
Stewart
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
wrote:
Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating
fission,
fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with
different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...
Someone is beating you to the draw:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/DG_neutrinos.pdf
T
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I wanted to mention one observation that is fairly important. If you set the upper turn around timing extremely critically, it is possible to get a very large COP. The reason is that the time constants associated with the thermal resistance and capacitance become quite large. The timing is as critical as it is large however and the system is balanced upon a sharp edge. It typically does not take long for the positive feedback to dominate and the curve begins a rapid decent. It sounds like your model suggests that it is fairly easy to have a power excursion that sinters the substrate if the device is operated at too high a temperature. I wonder whether this is behind Defkalion's using discrete spikes spikes in the input power rather than a continuous drive. Perhaps they find this eliminates some of the feedback problem. Are you including a stochastic component in the temperature as a function of the input power? If you do, I suspect the model will have to be operated at a lower average temperature than if the model were purely deterministic. Eric
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
My model is really quite simple and does not handle sintering of the materials. The turn around temperature can be set by adjusting the parameters of the model and is chosen to approach the real world information that is available. As you know, Rossi does not give out very much to work with. I view my model as a guide to understanding the behavior of the Rossi like devices under temperature excursions. Maybe later it can be improved to be more accurate. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I wanted to mention one observation that is fairly important. If you set the upper turn around timing extremely critically, it is possible to get a very large COP. The reason is that the time constants associated with the thermal resistance and capacitance become quite large. The timing is as critical as it is large however and the system is balanced upon a sharp edge. It typically does not take long for the positive feedback to dominate and the curve begins a rapid decent. It sounds like your model suggests that it is fairly easy to have a power excursion that sinters the substrate if the device is operated at too high a temperature. I wonder whether this is behind Defkalion's using discrete spikes spikes in the input power rather than a continuous drive. Perhaps they find this eliminates some of the feedback problem. Are you including a stochastic component in the temperature as a function of the input power? If you do, I suspect the model will have to be operated at a lower average temperature than if the model were purely deterministic. Eric
[Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device. The last version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation mechanism depended upon the core temperature as a second order function. The latest trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this temperature dependency to be of the third power. I was curious as to how much more critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it a test run. I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the core to the brink of critical run away temperature. This would not be acceptable unless an active cooling method was also available that could extract heat rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great. Rossi may have something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not evident. The power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10% during this test run. If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61. I noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has stated within his journal. With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that I could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak temperature excursion of the device. In the earlier experiment with the temperature dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and I achieved a good level with the first attempt. The implication of my modeling is that it is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that follows this general rule would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if the design contains a reasonable geometry and has the internal thermal resistances properly adjusted. If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional relationship of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can adjust the model to match the real world more closely. At this point it appears that Rossi is playing conservative and safe with his claimed COP of 6. He may eventually raise this level to be more competitive with others and there is room for adjustment especially if a good technique is used to actively cool the core. The usual disclaimer applies to this document. The model is for educational purposes only and may not reflect upon real device operational characteristics. Dave P.S. Contact me directly if you want further details about the model or its behavior.
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency
Le Aug 29, 2012 à 1:49 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com a écrit : If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional relationship of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can adjust the model to match the real world more closely. The formula I see from time to time for radiative heat depends on the fourth power of the temperature. See page 7 of the ICCF 17 slides from Melvin Miles [1]. I am not familiar with the scope of the formula's applicability. Eric [1] http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/ICCF-17-Miles-Examples-of-Isoperibolic-Poster.pdf
