At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
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.
First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit
less to me, because of factors that have been discussed in many
places. But let's assume that.
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.
No, it doesn't generate "even more heat." Initiation is not truly
abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the temperature behavior.
(We actually can't see the final adjustment, no data has been
provided for that. It can't be seen in the chimney temperature
profiles, because they are already nailed to boiling.
Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on
temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a
temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to
maintain that temperature under the conditions, which includes a
cooling chamber at the boiling point.
This would be an equilibrium temperature, but it would be unstable,
because, if any condition varies, the reaction would either quench as
it cools or run away as it heats, assuming that runaway is possible.
There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would
not be generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the
reaction chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the
self-sustaining temperature. Running closer to the equilibrium
temperature, the device becomes more potentially unstable. The 6X
ratio, apparently, represents a compromise temperature, below
self-sustaining, requiring external heat to be maintained. Much
higher ratios have been reported, along with some fear (real or
pretended) of runaway.
I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's
true that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its
only function would be to speed up the process of reaching operating
temperatures, and that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen
demo, input power was noted as being only a little more than the 300
Watt rated heating power of the outer band heater. What's heating the
reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then?
I'd been thinking of a reversed design, with the reaction chamber
being on the outside, so that the band heater heated it, with cooling
being on the inside. The insulated wires? Temperature sensor in the
reaction chamber, necessary for control. This idea about the band
heater, though, would require the band heater itself to go to
probably over 400 degrees. Is that sensible? Any sign that this thing
was getting that hot?
It's like opening a can of spaghetti and finding that half of the
pasta is actually worms. "Gee, it looked like pasta to me!"
Easy test for temperatures like that: touching it with some water,
those who witnessed open demos. That water should instantly sizzle
and vaporize. Spit will do.
I can't resist this:
A certain Italian engineer/inventor/entrepreneur:
"What you doing? You spit on my invention? You snake, you clown, you
spy! Leave and never come back, you and everyone like you!"
