On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: > >> Cude, Lomax: >> >> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it >> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. >> >> One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as >> resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having >> greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding >> about 6. >> >> Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically >> reasonable to either of you? >> > > It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature response > of the active material. > > The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with > increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point where there > is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below self-sustaining > temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the reactor becomes cooler, > and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc. > I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition. To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
