Dr. Swartz, Yes, that helps to greatly increase my confidence in what you've achieved. I know you have put a great deal of time, effort, thought, and money into this over the years to achieve something remarkable. I'm looking forward to your papers and what you will achieve in the future.
Best regards, Jack On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Dr. Mitchell Swartz <m...@theworld.com>wrote: > At 07:17 AM 7/11/2013, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > *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?* > > > > Jack, > > Yes. And we put a measured range of input powers through both the > ohmic control and device which are adjacent; so all extremes are examined. > Achieving this is complicated for both, and very difficult with the > nanomaterials. > > . The PHUSORs (aqueous CF/LANR) are in low paramagnetic heavy water > with cell impedances ca. 300 kilohms to 800 kilohms, which are probably > an impedance higher than your typical electrolytic systems. > This resistance decreases (degrades) over months to ~5 to 20 kilohms, > as described in the many papers on this (eg. from ICCF10). > > The NANORs (dry preloaded CF/LANR components) start at gigohms or higher, > and are driven to resistances ca. megohms to tens of kilohms > depending upon the type of NANOR. Some change is degradation, some is > material > change including redistribution associated with dielectric polarization > (such conduction is, of course, necessarily connected through Hilbert > space and the imaginary > part of the complex permittivity), and some catastrophic changes > under conditions associated with what appears to be avalanche electron > breakdown, > as we reported in several papers. > > If my email works tonight, you should shortly have copies of the papers; > two are preprints from the upcoming Proc. ICCF-17. > > Hope that helps. Good luck. > Mitchell Swartz > > *"Under the right conditions, > even the smallest ripple can create a mighty wave." > *–Zensunni maxim > > > > > 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 > >
