Thanks Bob! Everyone's is very excited about this On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:58 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I said, Alan Goldwater's work is on the small diameter coil that will > go into the dogbone in place of the LENR reactor core. Temperature > measurements made on it by itself, were made with a type-k thermocouple > placed inside the tiny alumina tube (4mm OD) used as a coil form for the > kanthal heater wire on the outside (6 mm OD coil). When the kanthal wound > tube was coated with a ceramic cement, there was insulation and not as much > convection and this coil got to the 1300C range inside the center of the > alumina tube. This is NOT the dogbone shaped convection tube. > > I know the text is confusing, having Alan's work described just below the > dogbone picture. The dogbone shaped convection tube has NOT been heated to > that temperature. > > You also have my opinion wrong. As I said, I am concerned that even > putting in a total of 3kW electric in our dogbone test, we may not get to > the same temperature as in the Lugano report. The electrical input in the > Lugano report was a little above 900W as I recall, and I don't believe it > is possible to get the dogbone to 1400C on the OUTSIDE with 900W input > based on our measurements. Also, the type of heater element we now believe > was used in the Lugano hotCat was not capable of delivering over about 1kW > of input heat. So if the hotCat was really putting out over 2.5kW of heat > to get it to 1400C, then there was definitely substantial gain. We will > know in January. > > Bob Higgins > > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *From:* Blaze Spinnaker >> >> Aren't you compare the body average to the core? The body average >> means that it's sustaining 1260 over the entire body. Doesn't that mean >> it's outputting more energy than one core reading? >> >> That depends on heat transfer characteristics of the two - it could be >> more or it could be less, but the point is that there is a similarity >> and near identity in the two systems that should be alarming to those >> who think Rossi was showing COP >3. >> >> If the report is accurate (and apparently Bob thinks it is not), then the >> preliminary implication is that either Rossi’s version is not gainful or >> the dummy reactor is gainful. >> >> >
