Who told you this? Somebody from DGT itself? Or someone else from the outside?
Is this one of those hearsay again? And this person who told you this
actually saw those devices or is he just speculating like the rest of us? Name
Please? or does he prefer to be anonymous? LOL ...
Those pictures were definitely spark plugs. I've never seen glow plug like
that before. The heating end of glow plugs are constructed differently.
Could this be another attempt at misdirection?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Higgins
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Harping on the Right Things!
At the W&M ILENRS-12 symposium, I was told that what is used by DGT and is
shown in their pictures were not spark plugs, but actually were glow plugs. I
was also told that DGT was having reliability problems with these devices.
If true, how does this change the thinking about what DGT is using to
stimulate/quench their reaction to form it into controlled pulses?
Bob
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey Gang,
A while back, I was harping on the use of sparks for LENR reactors. I
remember quite a vigorous exchange of ideas as to why sparks may be or may not
be a critical component. There was discussion as to whether RF or sparks was
the important thing. I was speculating that the temp. spike we find in DGT
charts were the result of sparks firing and rapidly increasing the temp of the
H2 and then rapidly dropping it again. I speculated that sparks was the
mechanism for modulating the reaction rates in DGT's reactors.
Well, after the publication of DGT's pictures of their reactors, we find
not 1 but 2 spark plugs. But even with the evidence, we still had a few people
here questioning the sparks. There was speculation that the spark plugs were
being used to plug a hole only, and serve as a high pressure/high temp plug
only; which to me was ludicruous as we find a host of other thermocouple
connections that could serve the same purpose.
Anyways, it turned out I was right about sparks being a critical ingredient.
Then I harped on Rossi's rationale for shifting to a fat-Cat design. I
speculated that this was Rossi's attempt to try to achieve more efficient and
consistent spark delivery. I then continued on and speculated that this design
was probably a CVD reactor in disguise. I speculated that the goal was to grow
Carbon Nanostructures on a nickel substrate.
Well, evidence seems to be accumulating on that front as well.
We find out that nickel use was reduced to a few grams (consistent with
nickel being used as growth catalyst for Carbon nanostructures. not as a metal
lattice for hosting a NAE.)
Then we found out his gen 2 reactors did not have hydrogen canisters
anymore. (Consistent with using a hydrocarbon gas to grow Carbon Nanostructures
and wth concurrent release of free hydrogen ions. as used in CVD reactors.)
Then we find out high temp (>600c) operation, which was consistent with a
NAE that is thermally stable. This is also the temp where CVD reactors work
at. More importantly, this gen 2 Rossi eCats did not experience thermal
runways. This is consitent with a reaction mechanism which was totally
different from his earlier thermionic catalyst based reactor.
So, evidence is mounting everyday regarding the use of Carbon
Nanostructures.
The point of this post is simply this. We here in the collective should
try to focus on understanding this new mechanism, e.g. Carbon
Nanostructure-based LENR - LENR2. Let's not waste our time discussing the
theory, evidences, possibilities of older LENR paradigms such as FP, and
others. LENR mechanisms are old, let's get on with LENR2. If we can get just
half of the brain power in this collective to study LENR2, that would go a long
ways in advancing the state of LENR research.
Jojo
--
Regards,
Bob Higgins
