Dave, My point is not a strong one. It is largely a comment to the effect that there are many unknowns, and the relationship between amount of fuel and the heat that is produced in a LENR system may not be straightforward. To answer your questions, suppose that for a given current (100 mA, say) there is a minimally sufficient amount of fuel to get excess heat, e.g., 1g active fuel. Any amount of fuel above this threshold will not contribute further without a higher current, and any amount below this threshold will decrease the excess heat seen. Within these parameters one can still postulate excess heat as a function of temperature, which provides a second variable. If the temperature is high, because there is good insulation, or we're using resistance heaters, that will multiply the excess heat in our thought experiment.
My point is only to highlight an assumption that I thought worth exploring -- that there is a simple relationship between the amount of fuel in a LENR system and the amount of excess heat that is developed. I am not aware of an experiment in which any relationship, consistent with your suggestion or otherwise, is clearly shown. Eric On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:17 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Eric, the fuel is strongly activated by its temperature. How else would > one explain the thermal run away processes that have been a problem with > these systems forever? If the outside temperature does not increase by > adding more fuel to the chamber then you are assuming that no additional > heat will be developed within the newly added material when it is subjected > to the fixed temperature and current that initially exists. > > So, what would you expect to happen if the fuel is reduced by a factor of > 2 at that initial temperature? Apparently you are speculating that the > temperature remains the same. And in the extreme case, what happens when > you take out all of the fuel? The bottom line is that some function must > define the behavior as the fuel load is varied, hence the COP must vary > along with that function. > > The only example that I can believe which fits the sensibility test is > that COP is going to change at least in a linear manner with increased fuel > loading as long as the system geometry remains the same. I am leaving out > the interaction of positive thermal feedback which will likely enhance the > COP as fuel is added to an initially constant temperature chamber to > simplify the example. > > Consider another problem with the concept that the current is the driving > factor instead of temperature. Why would the device require such high > temperatures in order to generate energy? It is not clear that the current > itself is important except for the heat that is associated with that > current flowing through the resistive windings. In any case I would be > extremely confused to find that the temperature of the device surface would > not vary as the amount of fuel is changed. No one has ever suggested this > effect AFAIK unless of course that there is no LENR present. But the > assumption is a COP of 1.5 at the beginning of the fuel adjustment phase. > > Are you aware of any experiment that has demonstrated what you are > proposing? > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2016 9:13 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > > Now, if you double the amount of fuel contained within the volume you can >> be quite certain that the outside temperature will increase, correct? > > > Not, it seems, to me, if the LENR activity is directly proportional to the > current and not the amount of fuel, provided there's more than a minimally > sufficient amount of fuel. > > Eric > >
