One of the more reassuring things when you see heat from current through a
loaded powder is the change in thermal output with applied magnetic fields.
That is the thing that help convince me.
Mitch, would you care to share any experience with mag. fields?
The impedance match of the ceramic based materials is a lot of work. I applaud
MS's work and efforts. I basically gave up working at the high impedance
levels and moved to carbon based material as a way to isolate the particles.
My electronic design skills were not the match for high R's and the lower R is
easier for me to work with.
If people doubt Mitch's work, I would point out that the NANOR's where run at
MIT within the a department dealing with Electronics. I am sure that any
obvious errors would be quickly ruled out.
D2
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:17:33 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Jet Energy - nanor/phusor question
From: jcol...@gmail.com
To: m...@theworld.com
CC: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Dr. Swartz,
Thank you for responding. I had not realized the lengths to which you went to
try to match the impedance, which must be very difficult with the changing
impedance of the active material. With the leads being the same, you would
have had times where the control impedance was greater than the active material
with the work you did on matching (thus reversing a possible effect of power
dissipation in the leads). Have you also had times where more power is put
through the active vs. control to see how that affects the Delta T/watt
comparison?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz <m...@theworld.com> wrote:
At 04:53 PM 7/4/2013, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote:
In my electrolysis research, I found that the wire leads for my control runs
made a significant difference. Obviously, thinner wire connecting to the joule
heater resulted in less power being dissipated in the joule heater and more
being dissipated in the wire leads. I had initially thought the wire was thick
enough, but I wasn't seeing as much heating as I expected. I switched to
thicker wire, and then I saw better heating.
That brings me to Jet Energy's (Mitchell Swartz) claims. His active material
has a much higher resistance than his control resistance. Could the apparent
excess heating in this device be related to the same phenomena (i.e., power
dissipation in electrical leads vs. where the measurements are taking place)?
Thank you for asking, Jack. Good questions.
The active materials are not always higher electrical resistance
than the control resistance. We try to make them equal,
but the CF/LANR component undergoes changes for several reasons,
and the controls are often changed to get them as equal as possible,
or multiple thermal ohmic controls are included.
On the leads.
We use 1 mm diameter leads into the CF/LANR components.
The PHUSORs have 1 mm Pt lead and 1mm Pd leads
which are shown in the papers from ICCF10.
That is mentioned in detail, and shown in photographs,
in Swartz, M., "Can a Pd/D2O/Pt Device be Made Portable to Demonstrate
the Optimal Operating Point?", Condensed Matter Nuclear Science,
Proceedings of ICCF-10, eds. Peter L. Hagelstein, Scott, R. Chubb,
World Scientific Publishing, NJ, ISBN 981-256-564-6, 29-44; 45-54 (2006).
The NANORs have similar size diameter of the leads and
are pure copper. They were designed so that input impedance would not be an
issue,
and their impedances are measured as well. The CF/LANR device's electrical
impedance
is usually measured by four-terminal measurement.
Also the excess heats are verified by several independent
systems as discussed in the papers (three usually, for the NANORs).
Mitchell Swartz
