Come to think about it, the High School reactor also uses a stark discharge into a liquid emulation of random diameter tungsten micro/nano powder and a potassium salt. They claim a COP of 4.**
* * On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ?? yes it produces sparks or arcs or discharge.... I am not sure of the > technical variations. > I am using a modified strobe light circuit. I cannot see into the "good" > brass sphere. I do have a cut away mockup of the sphere (I will have that > with my demo). The terminal ending moves among the various locations. > Most of the time the "sparks" terminate on one of the metal containing > carbon particles. They are "higher" than the binder that holds them. > > There is a little more to it than that- actually the lower half of the > sphere has an internal insulation layer to help it from too much heat loss, > a conductive connection between the brass sphere and the conductive binder > holding the particles. The upper half is "empty" or should I say filled > with gas so there can be convection movement of the gas. One think I did > learn from Les Case is that there must be convection or flow of H through > the material, or mixing of the powders in the gas. > > (note: as mentioned in some of my earlier post, I am using "mesopore" > carbon to contain my metal host lattice - which is a "doped" metal to lower > its E of vac. formation - I have not bought into the transmutation of > Nickel idea and am using mostly D not H) > > The sphere I will have at the NI demo is "self sustaining" at low power. > But only when brought up in temp. I will be holding it at 75C in an Al > bead dry bath. You can compare its temp to the control sphere. > > I hope to have one infinite COP (the spheres in a constant temp bath) > device and a low COP higher power device. I will be lucky to get to 1.33. > I have not evaluated the COP level for that one. Again, it is just for the > unwashed masses and not as a science item to produce data. > > It took me a while to figure out something visual for the public to show > heat production and compare it to a control. Something that does not > require any calculation- just comparisons. (but yes, a passerby could put > on a clamp amp meter if they enjoy that kind of thing.) > > I know it will tick of Jed, but it is just for fun and to stimulate public > interest in the field - nothing more. > > D2 > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:28:09 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? > From: janap...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > > > *Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode > (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my > material. But the material is only "stuck" to the lower half on the wall. > * > ** > *If this info is not closely held, does this electrode produce a spark? > If not what does it do?* > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > ------------------------------ > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? > From: dlrober...@aol.com > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:38:55 -0400 > > That is very interesting Dennis. If I understand you correctly, you solve > the thermal run away problem by extracting heat fast enough to keep the > thermal positive feedback loop gain below unity. That should work provided > there is enough energy released per pulse of drive to achieve a high enough > COP. > > *Yes, that is the way I look at it. You can get large COP at lower > outputs and lower temps. For example I have a small unit with no sparking > that has infinite COP but only fractional watts of excess. * > > The behavior that you describe would not depend upon very much gain being > augmented by thermal feedback as I suspect that Rossi is relying upon. Do > you understand why a spark would be so efficient at producing LENR? You > mention local heating as a possible factor, which certainly could cause > small hot regions to develop. Is this the key to high gain without > meltdown? > > *There must be a thermal path out of the region to take away the heat at > the right "speed". I assume that that could be done by adjusting the > particle size and "packing", but in my case, the metal host occupies pores > within carbon. * > > Once a hot spot is initiated, what prevents the heat from spreading > rapidly into the adjacent material and causing a sudden extreme burst of > energy? Perhaps the distribution of active hydrogen in the NAE is such > that areas capable of spreading the heat only exist in small patches and > are easy to extinguish. If this is true, new active regions would need to > form in time to take over the process as others die out. > > *Again, I believe the rates have an exponential them. coef. Notice in my > case the active regions are isolated via the carbon. So as the heat > spreads other regions would not be at as high a temp. and have a much lower > heat production rate. The slowly extinguish as the spark moves to other > regions*. > > So what functions does the spark perform in a system of this type? > Heating of a small region makes a great deal of sense as each spark strikes > the surface. Also, do you expect that the spark breaks apart the hydrogen > molecules as a second function? I can imagine a rain of protons falling > upon the metal due to ionization as another possible piece of the puzzle. > > *The spark just causes very high local temps. I don't really see the > spark functioning to ionize the H (my case D and H). I think it is the H > already in the lattice that reacts.* > > Has there been evidence of enhanced reaction caused be the magnetic field > associated with the currents entering or leaving the metal surfaces? If I > recall, DGT speaks of dipole behavior of Ryndberg hydrogen helping out. > Can you describe any evidence of this? > > *Yes, it seems that the reaction is almost linear in respect to the B > field. (also linear with mass, and expon. in terms of Energy of vacancy > formation. (that is why Ag helps Pd system and Cu and Pd ..... helps Ni > systems.) I believe that the H occupies or must move through the > vacancies. The occupation of H in a vacancy is likely in a controlling > pathway. * > > Your bowl shaped targets are quite interesting to consider. Does the bowl > tend to spread out the spark contact region? > > *Yes, think of the plasma globe type lights. I have a central electrode > (actually W rod held by a Cu tube). It is within a brass sphere holding my > material. But the material is only "stuck" to the lower half on the wall. > * > > From what you describe it appears that your reaction is almost entirely a > surface effect. Would you expect a very thin layer of active metal to work > in the same manner? A thin coating layered upon another passive metal > might be helpful in preventing a large scale thermal event. Maybe one of > Axils heat pipes underneath could extract the heat quickly enough to > enhance the net energy density. > > *Yes, one configuration (I have 4) has variable heat conductive heat > pipes. I have to juggle the heat extraction and production. (changes > contact areas)* > > Do you have to worry about the destruction of your active material as the > process operates? > > *If I "turn it up" to much my material is destroyed. In one device, I > use internal B fields (added Sm 2 Co 17 powder) and it will demagnetize. * > > Are you planning to demonstrate one of your devices at the conference? > > *At NI Week (Booth 922). It will be just a "golly gee" type of demo not > a science "prove it" demo. Small in the few watt range. I hope to be > upstaged by Defkalion. * > * * > * * > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: DJ Cravens <djcrav...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 9:29 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? > > > My take on their process is that the control and the sparks are related to > the positive heat coef. of the reaction and the rate at which the heat is > extracted. > > My best empirical model shows an almost exponential increase in max power > output with temperature (due to vacancy production). A few very hot > regions can produce a large fraction of the output. > > My reoccurring problem is to balance the temperature of the reaction > species with the rate at which I remove the heat. You remove too much > heat and the reaction sites cool down and the reaction slows. Most > people seem to be looking at the global average temperature of the bulk and > not the temperatures of local areas. By sparking to your sample you can > have very high local temperatures and thus higher local reaction rates, IF > your material is such that its resistivity increases with temperature. Notice > this is the case for most metals. Since the sparks target the paths with > greatest conductivity, the sparks are to new regions with lower > temperatures and lower resistance. i.e. you hit new regions. I believe > that they are basically sparking to a flat area within a cylinder. I > prefer to use a spark into a bowl shaped target. > > You just simply make sure that your heat flow out of the system is large > enough to stop any runaway reactions. (you are also saved by the 4thpower law) > For my system, it is a balancing act between heat production and heat > transfer out of the system. I do that by both having a variable heat > conductive path (variable contact areas by turning- think variable air > caps) for rough tuning and then changing the spark rate (I use a strobe > circuit). > > > Dennis > > ------------------------------ > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > From: dlrober...@aol.com > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:39:06 -0400 > Subject: [Vo]:DGT or ECAT? Same Process? > > Whenever I read about the DGT device I get the impression that it > behaves much differently than the ECAT. The main difference I focus upon > so far is the *method of control.* We have discussed the ECAT thermal > positive feedback control on many occasions and have developed models that > appear to explain its operation. The same is not yet true for the DGT > beast. > > Thermal control such as that used by Rossi seems to have difficulty > achieving a stable COP of 6 for the basic device excluding electrical power > generation and feedback. Of course it is expected that one will be able > to use the fed back electrical power to drive the device one day and > achieve a net COP of infinity. This should become possible fairly soon and > Rossi appears to be working hard to arrive at a reasonable design. > > DGT suggests that they potentially can already obtain a large COP, but I > have questions about the design since little has been demonstrated in > public. My reservations can easily be disposed of by additional > information and I anxiously await that time. > > The spark plug like ignition system of the DGT animal bears little > resemblance to the thermal operation of Rossi's ECAT. I have the suspicion > that there is something important to be learned by the fact that these > various devices both function. How can that be? What is it about the DGT > design that appears to efficiently use the spark induced reactions while > maintaining excellent control? We certainly are not interested in hot > fusion products which tend to be associated with high voltages such as > spark discharges. If acceleration due to high voltage is present then why > does this not occur? Does DGT balance the spark magnitude carefully enough > to avoid this fate while achieving adequate LENR activity? > > I want to learn from the DGT device as well as the ECAT. There appears to > be an understanding among most of us that some form of NAE is present which > allows LENR to proceed, but what form does it take? Is it the same for > both designs? What does the spark of DGT offer that heat alone seems to > neglect in the ECAT? It seems as if the ECAT would love to thermally run > away without much provocation while the DGT device does not seem to exhibit > that behavior. Perhaps DGT has done a good job of hiding this problem, but > they offer information that suggests that this is not happening with their > design. I find the description that the DGT design can be turned on and > off rapidly to potentially find applications that are diverse such as > transportation, the gold standard of mine as evidence. If thermal run away > were a major issue, then the rapid control might not be so easy to > demonstrate. > > From the information that I have gleaned, both systems appear to offer > excellent energy density and good power output. This is extremely > important for future applications. It will be interesting to witness the > race between these two horses in the near future. Of course, others might > enter the fray soon and we all will benefit it that occurs. > > I realize that I have touched upon a multitude of interesting issues in > this post and I hope that some of our esteemed members can add important > information to the discussion. And if the answers to some of my questions > appear, then that would be fantastic. > > Dave > > >
