Extending on Peter Gluck’s concept of LENR+ as a supplemented LENR design, I offer to classify this new Rossi design as a LENR++ design.
DGT LENR+ technology has been superseded by Rossi’s new LERN++ design. I will wait for this new Rossi device to be commercially available for home use before I make a buying decision on my own personal LENR unit. Cheers: Axil On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > This new information is the major reason for my post. The control is now > far superior if the recent reports are accurate. > > The actual operating temperature of the core internally is not different > unless it can now be elevated without danger of thermal run away, and if > the process is totally under control of something as simple as an electric > current then he has a much improved device. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 4:12 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 600 C Operations > > In the old style E-Cat core, the flow of coolant water was the way the > E-Cat heat production process was controlled. Water flow was increased to > retard the reaction, and conversely water flow was retarded to increase the > reaction. > On the other hand, the DGT core is also thermionic. DGT turns the reaction > off and on to produce a pulsed heat source where heat generation is > averaged over a period of time. > > Because the reaction mechanism is no longer thermionic, there is no > coolant involved, electric control alone can regulate the reaction in the > E-Cat core. In the new solid state E-Cat design,a steady flow of input > electric current results in a steady level of direct output of heat > production. > The elimination of thermionic control is major progress made possible by > the design of the solid state E-Cat, IMHO. > > Cheers: Axil > > > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I just want to remind people that the claimed operating temperature of >> 600C is not new. When Rossi presented the ecat in Jan 2011, he said >> the core would reach temperatures around 600C, but the heated water >> only just boiled. Now he claims the core is stable at 600C but he is >> not doing anything with the generated heat. Is this progress or >> puffery? >> >> Harry >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> wrote: >> > Recently it has been reported that the latest version of the Rossi >> ECAT can >> > operate at 600 degrees centigrade or more without going unstable. This >> is a >> > remarkable improvement if accurate and it is suggested that the proof >> will >> > be delivered soon. >> > The earlier versions of the device tended to become unstable when the >> > temperature increased much beyond the operational level and now that >> appears >> > to be under control. To operate in such a manner suggests that the >> > mechanism which establishes the LENR activity is mostly independent of >> > temperature of the device. Actually it might imply that now there is a >> form >> > of negative feedback operating which tends to throttle back the energy >> > generation process once a threshold temperature is reached. >> > I have long hoped that the driver source could become independent of the >> > output states in LENR devices since that would devoice the devices from >> the >> > strong temperature effects that have made stability a big problem to >> contend >> > with. Imagine how wonderful it will be if we are able to control the >> > reaction by just changing the drive with minor temperature degradations. >> > There has been a lot of recent activity related to carbon nanotubes and >> > variation in the waveforms driving the LENR devices. Perhaps Rossi has >> > found a good combination of hydrogen storage with release control and an >> > electrical signal that work together as a system. Time will reveal if >> all >> > or any of this is true. >> > Maybe someone within the group has knowledge of the operation of the >> > Patterson cells which seemed to use an electric current as the control >> > handle. Was that device sensitive to temperature in the manner >> associated >> > with positive feedback or more benign as would be expected if negative >> > feedback were dominate? >> > I for one would welcome the improvements in the Rossi device that have >> been >> > outlined, but have learned from experience that it is easy to say >> something >> > remarkable but then not follow up with the goods. Perhaps this time we >> will >> > see the results that we so much anticipate. >> > Dave >> > >> >> >
