I'm complaining because any use of LENR will have to take much more
into account than this very simplified designed describes. What value
does this design have? It is a obvious engineering solution to
removing heat from a source. It does not solve the basic problem that
prevents LENR from working at all. Would you give me money to study
LENR if all I provided was an idealized heat exchanger?
The decision of whether to give money to study LENR will not depend on
an engineering design, so why take this route? Why propose a toy
concept using a phenomenon that is not understood, is not accepted,
and for which no proof of concept exists. The other proposals do not
have this handicap. I'm not suggesting that money not be requested.
I'm only asking it be done in a serious way that does not look silly.
Ed
On Mar 5, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
From: Edmund Storms
Ø [snip] motor that drives a fan. No provision is made for control
of temperature …
Wait a minute. Why doesn’t the airflow from the fan control the
temperature by removing heat from the fins which are themselves
heated by the TEG ?
Are you complaining that he did not show heat sensors and computer
circuitry used to control airflow?
You do realize that only a fraction of the electricity generated
from the TEG drives the fan ?
Presumably airflow is metered by a temperature sensor (not shown)
but engineers do not need to see every detail, as it is implied and
obvious.
Jones
