Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas


register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Morris Dovey on May 1, 2012, 6:55 pm
On 5/1/12 1:36 PM, j wrote:

It was strict enough for one of the regulars to call Dennis Ritchie out
for being off-topic, although there was a smiley attached to the post.

[ For non-programmers, Dennis designed the C language and wrote its
first compiler - which was then used to produce the first version of Unix. ]

Morris Dovey

Posted by j on May 1, 2012, 7:53 pm
On 5/1/2012 2:55 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

That is very funny!!!!

Posted by j on May 1, 2012, 7:40 pm
 On 5/1/2012 1:37 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

As long as you have to put energy in COP is important. After  a certain
point it won't matter much.

Wikipedia has hydrogen burning as 61,000 BTU/lb multiply that by 3
million and you have an enormous amount of energy for even a tiny amount
of hydrogen.

It would seem that more hydrogen would be unneeded.

I think the key is to keep the oxydizers out.

I'm thinking the pressure is not key. From the outline posted at the top
of  this thread, it looks like a fusion vacuum tube. The heat is there
for similar reasons that you have a heater in a tube's cathode.
Alternatively it could be a strong magnetic field. The containment
appears to be glass.

Didn't bother me at all. Of course, I'm not Mike!

I really don't think we can

nd for what gain?

Form what I can gather this is a heisenberg uncertain kind of thing. You
have a normal pattern of probabilities and then you have the low
percentage one that is at the edge that "fuses". The key is to ratchet
up the low probability... so more rare fusions take place. I don't see
this as a runaway event. It doesn't look like fission where it multiplies.

Now adding pressure has it's own risk, but I don't think you will need
as much as you expect.


Posted by Morris Dovey on May 1, 2012, 10:03 pm
 On 5/1/12 2:40 PM, j wrote:

One of Rossi's claims is that there is a [at least one] combination of
pressure and temperature at which the reactor begins /producing/ energy
over and above that being used by the heater (what I've termed the
"ignition" point), and another [at least one] at which the heat energy
being produced is sufficient for the reaction to be self-sustaining.

If true, that means that an external energy source is needed only for

I know as little as anyone but I suspect that if ignition occurs at all,
it will occur at multiple (pressure,temperature) pairs, and that a plot
of those pairs will produce a locus of points along a curve strongly
resembling a first quadrant hyperbolic segment - and I'm guessing that
there is a similar (displaced) locus of (pressure,temperature) pairs for

To my knowledge, this is still unexplored territory - and my intention
is to do that exploration and produce the equations that describe those
two curves - and, as I do that, record enough data to make the reactor
behavior predictable (and so safer).

This old code snippet may give some idea how I'm approaching the testing
sequence (not sure if the formatting will survive):

// Find a complete set of LENR ignition (pressure,temperature) pairs

void lenr(void)
{  startup(0-0);                       /* Configure hardware
    note0("Startup complete");          /* Log startup

    // Run a sequence of tests at progressively higher pressures

    for (tgt_p = min_p; SAFE && (tgt_p <= max_p); tgt_p += inc_p)
    {  note1("Testing pressure",tgt_p);

       // Run a sub-sequence of tests at progressively higher temps

       for (tgt_t = min_t; SAFE && (tgt_t <= max_t); tgt_t += inc_t)
       {  saf_t = tgt_t + mar_t;
          note1("Target temperature",tgt_t);
          note1("Safety threshold",saf_t);

          // Perform a single LENR test (t0 is global current temp)

          if (SAFE && (t0 >= tgt_t) && sustain(tgt_t))
          {  note1("Sustained",t0);
       note0("Temperature sequence complete");
       if (SAFE) coolto(min_t = tgt_t - 10);

That's my interpretation as well. Rossi has indicated that the fineness
of the powdered nickel (exposed surface area) plays a role - so I'll
guess that the 3 million number represents what be theoretically
possible if the powder particles were atom-sized.

Still, I find it intimidating.

Yes - but I can't help but believe that Rossi would have furthered his
own interests by maintaining the hydrogen feed to extend the test
duration. It's another item on my "need to learn more about this" list.

The very first step at startup is to open the entire system to a vacuum
tank to remove all air. Hydrogen is a reducing agent, which means that
if the nickel or the inner surfaces of the reactor are even slightly
oxidized, it will react with the oxides to produce water vapor. So the
system is flushed a second time to eliminate the water vapor.

Any moisture in the system could be a problem, since water's vapor
pressure skyrockets when heat is added - and I don't have any control
over how "dry" my hydrogen is going to be. This becomes an entirely
different problem from eliminating oxidizers.

That was my conclusion, but that's not the device I'm planning to test.
I'm going to install a pressure gauge and have the software keep an eye
on it.

I'm in partial agreement here. I see pressure as governing how close the
hydrogen atoms are, and I see temperature as governing how fast they're
moving (and perhaps how energetically they're impacting the nickel
atoms). I could well be wrong, but I'd a lot rather be safe than sorry.
Perhaps the data will contribute to understanding what's really going on
in there.

That could well be (and that would be a Good Thing) - but I'm not
comfortable with just my guesses or your opinion. :-)

Morris Dovey

Posted by Jim Wilkins on May 1, 2012, 10:51 pm

Only if liquid water is present. The vapor acts about like any other
Calcium Chloride (sidewalk deicer) is an effective dessicant after you
heat-dry it to constant weight. You can buy pressure-tight dessicant
cannisters to screw into air hoses for spray painting.


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread