I'm not sure I follow about "powder high temperature magnet". Cravens used a low-temperature heating bed, Cole resistive heaters at a higher temperature. I am also not sure how much electromagnetic energy is produced by heating coils at high (500C) temperatures vs. a heating unit--but should be measurable.
If an electric oven or gas fired kiln doesn't work, but electric resistive heating elements do, all things being equal.... that bit of information is critical to our understanding, and shouldn't be just a theory. Especially if a decent lab furnace is cheap and accessible (ebay). Rossi says natural gas is (was?) an acceptable form of pre-heating. - Brad On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jack Cole uses heat to produce the magnetism that LENR requires. Cravens > simply uses powder high temperature magnet. Because these two systems are so > different, a common type of demo of these two different systems is not > feasible IMHO. > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Brad Lowe <ecatbuil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> That is exciting news. Can a Cravens style demo be made by putting >> both control and test into a lab furnace? Hard to beat that for >> elegance and simplicity. >> >> - Brad >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> > Jack Cole continues to improve his prior results, based on a simplified >> > Rossi/Parkhomov alumina tube reactor - with the aim of finding a safe >> > and >> > reliable “baseline” experiment which almost anyone can pull off, even a >> > physics professor, in order to see thermal gain greater than chemical. >> > >> > >> > http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/27/replication-nilioh-excess-heat-results/ >> > >> > Please note: >> > >> > 1) Yes, Jack’s experiment is low gain (COP~ 1.1) for now, and has >> > no >> > frills, but it is simple and SAFE and does not require large power input >> > (although larger input is being considered) >> > >> > 2) LAH is a dangerous reactant and only skilled experimenters with >> > a >> > glove box should even think about it >> > >> > 3) This experiment is now looking repeatable, and given that it is >> > safer, since there is no LAH, hopefully it will be replicated by many, >> > or >> > else someone will discover where the experimental error lies and why >> > control-run calibrated thermometry (as in Lugano) can’t be trusted. >> > (note: >> > everyone agrees that this should move to precision calorimetry >> > eventually, >> > once the gain is improved). >> > >> > 4) Please do not be overly critical of low budget efforts where the >> > gain is based on calibration against a dummy reactor. Not everyone can >> > afford foolproof calorimetry, but anyone can make small cumulative >> > advances >> > to a common theme, if the underlying experiment is safe enough and >> > inexpensive. >> > >> > 5) In fact, Cole’s technique is similar but better performed than >> > the >> > Lugano report, since he did use calibrated thermocouples which Levi >> > failed >> > to do. >> > >> > 6) Since the resistance wire is internal the experiment cannot >> > reach >> > temperatures in excess of say 1000C but lower temperature will show >> > thermal >> > gain. But this makes the experiment much simpler. >> > >> > 7) In principle, COP of 1.1 is no less AMAZING than COP 2.5, if the >> > gain is above chemical, since both are arguably outside the laws of >> > normal >> > thermodynamics. >> > >> > Jones >> >
