On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: > > >> 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. They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the ratio. > > > 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." I agree, but they certainly claim it does. > Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the > temperature behavior. It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its own. > 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. > The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What am I missing? > > 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. If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature. > > 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? > The K&E report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures of the leads for it.
