Posts by anonymous

Quote from Curbina

My experience with Vacuum is from taking part on a process for producing fish oil enriched DHA/EPA capsules. We had two vacuum pumps (1 HP each) to empty a 7 cubic meters boiler. We had an ethanol / hydrolized fish oil fraction separated by ion exchange mixture and we recovered the ethanol from it boiling it at 15° C to keep the oil from spoiling. I recall we worked a very low pressures to be able to do that. All our valves were swagelok, they are kind of the industry standard, you close one and it keeps the reactors at the same internal pressure for weeks.

Curbina -- this is medium to high vacuum and thus likely a lot higher vacuum than what you needed for your fish oil capsule manufacturing. The volumes are lower so a smaller pump will not take excessively long to reach the vacuum required. Yes, it will use Swagelok -- that's the standard and they work at these temperatures. The only question is how high of a vacuum is needed, how long to get it there, and how to measure it. I think this intermediate approach with a cheaper turbopump (backed by a rougher pump) is the best way to get to the 10^-4 Torr level which I believe is enough to prove that the rig doesn't leak and to vacuum out the volatile components. Overall, I think the rig will cost around $10K with the majority spent on the turbopump/backer pump. This assumes the experiment can be done reliably without RGA or Mass Spec, which I view as primarily needed for debugging rather than verification. The important measurements are vacuum (i.e. partial pressure) and temperature. I think if the unit is making 2 to 3 kW, we can go with rough natural convection + radiation calorimetry as that is a lot of power, but not so much that we cannot measure it with thermocouples. For those who would criticize Rossi's use of same, I remember than he needed a thermal camera to measure surface temperature. We don't need that. He also had a continuous H2 supply hooked up to his rig. We will have that valved off, and for good measure, we can disconnect the tube going to the tank to eliminate any chance of D2 resupply during the run. I think of the final unit like a vacuum tube that is sealed. If this is indeed what Mizuno is running, and that is what I think Jed had indicated, a functional sealed tube putting out 2 to 3 kW at 0.3 to 0.5 kW input will be all the proof we need. As anyone can then replicate same, it becomes proof positive.

Quote from JedRothwell

You must have a precision pressure gauge. I do not see that in your list of instruments. I do not see how you can do this without a mass spectrometer, because you will not know whether contamination and water have been driven out of the reactor.

http://www.instrutechinc.com/s…VM211_Data_Sheet_Torr.pdf

Good down to 10^-4 Torr = .013 Pa.

Good enough to prove you have baked out the water and volatiles and that it hasn't started to leak once sealed off. Good enough to determine the absolute rate of vacuum loss with a timed test (record the pressure rise with time after valving off and fit the data to an exponential curve).

If the unit holds the 300 Pa of pressure recommended by Mizuno after bakeout and it is sealed, and if it generates excess heat, I don't see the need for the mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer is for more advanced debugging as to what the leak is. If it is not leaking, i.e. maintains 300 Pa, and it is sealed off as you said from the D2 tank after it has been loaded, we don't need to know the percentage of different molecules in the reactor. This assumes that D2 is in the tank, but as I said, I would buy that from Sigma Aldrich and they have a quality spec of 99.8% pure D2.

Still working on finding a suitable pump that can achieve these levels -- best I see in the two stage pumps goes down to 1 micron = 0.13 Pa = 10^-3 Torr. These cost almost as much as a rebuilt turbopump, ($2K), so I think a turbo pump is the way to go. I think the vacuum pump section is going to cost $4K, but at least we can be certain that we dried out the water and volatiles.

Jed,

I have been thinking that I can replicate without the turbopump (as mentioned by Alan Smith -- use a two stage rougher) and without the RGA/mass spec.

I would order and have pre-built for me the conflat assembly with vacuum fitting and place for heater. Ideally I can get them to put the heater in, vacuum sealed. The gets rid of the hard part.

I need then a cylinder of D2 (which I will purchase), and a few valves: one to regulate and then isolate the D2. (Have to think about how to get very small pressures of D2 into the conflat, there must be a valve regulator that will do that), and one to evacuate the rig, and then one to isolate it for the run.

I need one Pirani type vacuum gage.

I need a few rtgs or thermocouples to measure the temperature.

And then I need the power supply -- preferably DC, so that I can easily measure volts and amps.

Some kind of recording device would be helpful to gather the 7 or so channels of data.

Of course the nickel screen and palladium

Maybe this can be built for $4K (assuming one Oz of palladium).

I would evacuate and bake out until the vacuum was minimized on the gage, do leak pressure rise testing vs time. I then do calibration runs of temperature vs. power in. At that point I would assume the unit if it leak tests with a very slow rise in pressure is ready to introduce the D2 for the loading. I can load it a few times to recombine any residual O2 with the D2 and get then baked out as water, and then re-evacute it. I am then ready for the final loading. It then gets valved off from the outside and is ready for a heat run.

Does this sound reasonable or must we use higher vacuum turbopump and an RGA, thereby raising the bill of materials by about $10K?

My longer term objective is to get the replication bill of materials cheaper and faster, in the form perhaps of a kit sold by Alan Smith, so that we can get the masses involved in making heat in their garage. That makes it incontrovertible so that we don't have to rely on Nature's editorial board.

Thank you

Quote from JedRothwell

I forgot to address this issue raised by TTH:

(a) The R20 COP is too high for this system to be stable. sure, it could be stable, but not with claimed power out vs temperature. Chances of instability are very high and this would have been noted by M.

This is incorrect. There is no sign of instability.

First, you can see this is anomalous heat. Look at the first 10 minutes of Fig. 6, and the stray points in Fig. 8. Resistance heating does not act that way.

Now look at the increase in Fig. 6 from minute 10 to hour 1:40. It is sedate.

Display More

Jed,

Agreed that the figure 5 and figure 6 reactors are stable at 50 watts. When we get data at 250 and 300 watts input, we will see again if the equivalent delta-T and power calculation is stable.

My recommendation is to run the R20 reactor in the open-air test stand in Mizuno's fireplace with 4 hours between step increases: 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, and record the temperature on the shell thermocouples/RTDs. The temperatures there should also be stable after 2 hours on each thereby disproving instability at those input powers.

Note:

No doubt the reactor will both radiation more (as T^4 on whatever emissivity it has -- that being close to stainless steel) and will convect more. The convection will not be increased linearly per delta-T because the rate of natural convection will increase with airflow, but if the unit was really dynamically unstable, it's heat production will increase faster than the radiation and convective heat losses combined. (The above assumes that there is little or no conduction thru the gas/vacuum inlet port and the power supply wires to the heater and to the frame -- they can probably be modeled together as one conductive element.)

Because both radiation and natural convection will increase non-linearly at a greater rate than delta-T, this can also put a lower bound on the heat production of the reactor assuming you have calibrations for it in the open air with an inert control gas before it has been loaded with D2 for the first time.

Quote from Max Nozin

Cydonia there is also an opportunity to Dr.Mills ie keep going all way to 20MW in a cup.

Dr.Mills ie keep going all way to 20MW in a cup for 1 picosecond.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

Rossi demonstrated how easy it is to fool desirous people with complete garbage. Anybody who had pushed Rossi to calibrate properly early on and to allow proper inspection of the gear would have defeated his fraud. Why nobody forced the issue is an ongoing mystery to me. Had Rossi refused, that would also have been strong negative evidence. We all know the usual suspects for what actually took place.

Disagree with your main point. Rossi demonstrated why letting a "black box" of "secret stuff" (in Rossi's case the "fuel") run only for a select few validating scientists a single site is worse than useless -- it has NO information content that can be believed.

Mizuno/Rothwell have given us instructions for making the formerly secret stuff, now "open source stuff" so that anyone can replicate and we can have as many scientists as who would care to replicate.

Both experiments are/were claimed (past tense for Rossi's Lugano) to be at high power and high COP. Only Mizuno/Rothwell shows us how to do it. That is why Rossi's current and earlier demonstrations were garbage -- they hid all the interesting parts behind a curtain.

Quote from JedRothwell

As I said in the paper, the kilowatt-scale reactions exceed the capacity of his air-flow calorimeter. He & I are discussing what sort of calorimetry can be done.

Jed,

My suggestion is to get a large room in a building with "normal insulation" (i.e. not a metal shed) that will not be damaged by raising the temperature to 40C and that can be fully valved off from any heating or AC to the remainder of the building. Ideal would be during the winter. Measure the room volume and record the temperature say every minute inside the room, outside the building, and in adjacent rooms that have heating. Turn the unit on and note the temperatures. Terminate the test if the room temperature exceeds 40C. Leave the doors and windows closed during the experiment.

Conventional building engineering models will show what temperature the room will rise to with a given amount of heat power input, and also how fast. This is done all the time so that an engineer can decide how large of an electric heater to use to heat a room (for those buildings where cheaper power is unavailable), i.e. do we need 1000 watts, or 2000 watts to be able to keep the room at 20C during the winter. Clearly the test will be easier for Mizuno if done during winter when the heat transfer out will be higher at lower interior temperatures.

For a control, a conventional 1200 watt electric heater can be used, with the same experimental protocol. Even better would be to find two rooms of the same thermal properties, run the test, and then swap them. This eliminates the variability of the outside air temperature or the insolation. Proof of power input can be provided with a conventional AC current probe and for good measure an AC volt meter across the wall to see the amount of voltage drop from the current at the units.

Incontrovertible and sensible. Anyone who comes to visit, even the Prime Minister or equivalent politician, would "get it" right away as they need no other proof other than it is really hot in the active room as compared to the control room.

End of Cold Fusion debate.

Deuterium gas -- what am I missing here -- a 10 liter bottle 99.96% pure is only $263. Why are we making D2 from D2O?

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/c…/368407?lang=en&region=US

Quote from Alberto

Simultaneity is very important in my point of view. To turn-off and then turn-on the reactor takes time and this may add variables and, with those, doubts. If the current throughout the heaters is the same (as when they are in series) and the gas and its pressure is the same in both (same plumbing) at the same time in the active and dummy reactors, only the active elements in the active reactor would explain significant difference in temperature.

I respectfully disagree. I'd rather have the SAME equipment than simultaneity as otherwise I have to prove that the cylinder rig in A vs B is thermodynamically calibrated to be the same. Swapping gas also saves complexity, and hence both time and money in the build out of the rig. But, I would accept just as well another experimenter building a simultaneous tube rig, i.e. it's their money and time so they can prove it any way that they want. Hopefully we all get the same results ... greater than 5x power out to power in at 300 watts in. That is solid proof in my mind and way beyond the signal to noise ratio of any experimental error. 1800 watts out is a BIG space heater -- it will get real hot. I don't need thermometers or RTGs to know real hot, so I can move on without torturing myself if the equipment is properly calibrated as the answer would be obvious to anyone with normal thermoreceptors in their hands. Even editors from Nature.

Quote from Dr Richard

Me:

We only need a "dummy" i.e. control gas in the reactor. Because of the design of the experiment, the heat has to come out somewhere from the core heater or the reaction itself. If the reactor is first loaded with say helium or nitrogen and then run, and the temperature at the reactor cylinder thermocouple(s) and the Delta-T between the input and the output airflow is measured and recorded; and then the reactor is loaded with the D2 gas to near optimal parameters and the core heater is turned on to the same power setting; if the temperature is significantly higher for both the output airflow and the cylinder thermocouples, that is proof positive for excess heat from the rig. Simple -- no extra swapping of components, just hook up the inert gas cylinder first, run the control run; and then pump it out, load it with the D2 gas for the active run, and take the data. This would end any doubt that LENR works.

Dr. Richard:

And if it can be demonstated that its all down to muons inducing fusion reactions in the stainless-steel reactor walls well, that discovery would certainly make a good Nature paper. Maybe even Holmlid could be persuaded to try replicating Mizuno's expts (using YAG IR laser instead of the heater maybe?). Certainly food for thought.

Display More

We don't need to know the underlying atomic (or subatomic) physics now for this to be proof positive. That can come later. The important thing is that if we have human skin sense warmth of excess energy proof positive, EVERYONE will start to work on the underlying physics until we end up with an atomic physics model that explains the future experiments. That is for later. Proof positive now at these "sense-able" (irrefutable to instrument error because we don't need instruments) powers, that would change the physics worlds' priorities. Right now no one wants to invest their conventional physics establishment career on LENR because it is just not important enough to invest one's career. Make 1800 watts from a simple rig that gets really hot -- that's as important as the first nuclear pile under U. Chicago, especially considering our climate and nuclear waste problems. People will change their priorities. This kind of high power irrefutable proof is important for bringing the mainstream into LENR and turning the mainstream physics community away from the people who to this day control the Nature editorial decision making. Mainstream doesn't work on LENR now because they think it doesn't work. This rig, if built by themselves, would prove that they were wrong to themselves. If there was an unexplained phenomena machine that they could build in a few weeks and use to heat their basement lab over the deep winter. They only have to see one in their city working over the 3 months of winter to know its real and change their mind.

Quote from Shane D.

Be even better if they identify themselves, so we can start a replication thread. There, they could openly communicate with each other, and the forum. Much better chance of success that way. It would have some of the advantages of working as a team; less chance of reinventing the wheel, equipment, where cheapest, most effective for the task, what worked/what not. ECW has a list thread started, but their format is not as conducive to this as we are.

This way also, when Mizuno/Rothwell answers a question from one, what is said can be instantly relayed to the others...which will ease the workload of the authors. Just a suggestion.

I agree that there should be a replication thread. This thread however serves that purpose in the interim.

Quote from JedRothwell

Relegate to a poster session at ICCF22. Honestly, I prefer that. I don't like talking in front of crowds. I tend to have fits of sneezing. I have already reached a far larger audience than any ICCF conference provides. I can tell from the log files at LENR-CANR.org.

1) Poster session -- nonsense -- Mizuno is a very important experimentalist at this point in LENR development. What you two share is very important to the field and way too important (sorry to use the same word 3 times) to relegate to a poster session. When you present for him in English, you are the communicating face of the Mizuno/Rothwell team. You will get a full session if you give a few additional details to the jury vetting the presentations. This simple "Mizuno Rig" is new and hugely important, so I cannot understand why the presentation selection jury would not give you two a live presentation. Please take the effort to combat your podium reticence and get our gratitude for communicating a full presentation.

2) You are an inspiring speaker -- you inspired me.

Enough said,

Anonymous

Quote from JedRothwell

Read what happened to Miles. The same sort of thing happened to nearly every other researcher I know, except McKubre. As I said before, I do not understand why you think these results are more interesting or more compelling than those of Miles, or Storms, or the other best results. If those people were accused of crimes and kicked out, why do you think someone replicating this result will not be accused?

Whether I consider this interesting is not the issue. The question is: What would officials at the DoE think of these results? What will university deans, or the editors at Nature think of them? I know exactly what they will think. I have heard it countless times. Suppose you could talk to an expert at the DoE right now, or the editors of Nature or Sci. Am. You ask: "What do you think of the latest report from Mizuno, uploaded at LENR-CANR.org?" They would tell you that Mizuno and Rothwell are well known con artists, liars and criminals, and that not a single report at LENR-CANR.org is credible. High officials have accused me of making up all of these papers. They said that not one of them was actually published in the literature. They will tell you that if any of these claims were true, the researchers would be killed by gamma rays.

These people would never read this report, or any other paper at LENR-CANR.org. They say they will not. You might as well expect leading biologists to read papers at creationist websites. The people at the DoE, the universities and Nature are certain -- absolutely certain with no shadow of a doubt -- that all cold fusion claims are lunacy and criminal fraud. That is what they say, and I am sure that is what they mean. Why would they lie about this? I am also sure they have read nothing and they know nothing. You can see that from their descriptions of the experiments.

Jed -- the difference here is the large excess power and simplicity of the Mizuno rig. No one can in their right mind dispute this if they see the rig working and it is a lot hotter with D2 (sealed off) than without D2. I will do the calculations in a few, but the difference in temperature will be significant -- enough to heat a room. It's sensible -- you don't need a thermometer to prove that 1800 watts is a LOT hotter than 300 watts. One barely makes your hand warm at 6 inches, and the other makes your hand feel like it will be burned after absorbing the IR. Rossi's test you needed an IR camera. Here, your hand is going to say ouch -- that is really really hot. This cannot be faked as the power involved is way too large and there are no hidden wires or gas supplies as Rossi had in his hidden rigs. This is not a few beakers that have a thermometer in it. The results are astounding if they can be replicated and as soon as any physicists with a lab sees one of these and realizes that they can build it in their lab in under two weeks without anyone noticing, it will be replicated and published in ... Nature! Such a just dessert for them. Let's get to work on this.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

A result of such magnitude should be replicable by any well known test lab or government organization- also by a major university physics department where the department itself would endorse the tests. And there would be no problem with Mizuno providing the equipment, even as a black box, as long as all power in and power out measurements were provided by the experimenters using their own methods and equipment. So not just replication but replication done well by the best available and especially the most credible people- people with no vested interest if possible.

No black boxes. Mizuno is very clear and very open unlike Rossi. No one needs a pre-built black box that one is forbidden to see the insides. That is what makes this science instead of "validation of a prebuilt secret". This is science and if I guess right, at least 3 independent replicators are working right now in the LENR community. After we are sure, I am sure that a university physics or chemistry department will be brave enough, after looking at one of these things, to do it in their own lab. Mizuno experiment is too simple to not replicate -- we don't need crazy IR cameras and secret powders. This is open source science. I am having problems believing after the long drought that it is finally actually raining. I really want to clang the glasses on this one.

Quote from Alberto

Mizuno's results show hundreds of extra watts coming out of the reactor. One thermocouple (or several) would certainly show a significant teperature difference (tens of degrees) between a dummy and a loaded reactor. We are already having long discussions about calorimetry rights and wrongs... The setup I have suggested would confirm anomalous heat without any doubt, if the kind of COP Misuno has achieved is replicated.

We only need a "dummy" i.e. control gas in the reactor. Because of the design of the experiment, the heat has to come out somewhere from the core heater or the reaction itself. If the reactor is first loaded with say helium or nitrogen and then run, and the temperature at the reactor cylinder thermocouple(s) and the Delta-T between the input and the output airflow is measured and recorded; and then the reactor is loaded with the D2 gas to near optimal parameters and the core heater is turned on to the same power setting; if the temperature is significantly higher for both the output airflow and the cylinder thermocouples, that is proof positive for excess heat from the rig. Simple -- no extra swapping of components, just hook up the inert gas cylinder first, run the control run; and then pump it out, load it with the D2 gas for the active run, and take the data. This would end any doubt that LENR works.

(The above assumes as per Jed's discussion that the D2 valve is turned off when running the active experiment, and that the control gas valve is turned off when running the control experiment, and that there is no leakage of D2 gas from the pressure side of the valve during the active test that could by some weird coincidence oxidize the D2. I think that those items are easy to rule out for Mizuno or any replicator using for example pressure gage in the reactor and the pressure gage on the D2 or control gas rig. Simple alternative arrangements (i.e. two valves, one on the tank side and one on the rig side, with a pressure gage in between) can rule out any significant D2 being introduced.

In short, with those assumptions, it seems to this anonymous observer that we have proof positive coming after a successful replication. Congratulations to the experimenters and the entire community conditional on the successful replication. It's almost too good to believe is true. Cheers!

Quote from Alan Smith

Lovely idea. At what concentration might Deuterium burn reliably under those conditions? I can tell you, it would need to be a concentration of +5% by volume.

Need we go on anymore?

Alan -- not burn, but catalytically react. Hot stainless steel would act like a catalyst for reacting the D2 with O2 from a leak. (Edit: so will nickel and palladium.)

However, I think I just read from Jed that the D2 is valved off, i.e. the cylinder is sealed from any D2 getting in once the experiment commences. Assuming I understand him correctly, there is only a few dozen joules of D2 available for chemical reaction with any air that leaks in (i.e. the D2 that is within the volume of the stainless cylinder when it is valved off at the commencement). This few dozen joules over the course of 24 hours would account for under 1 mW of average heat, i.e. effectively zero heat from chemical, thereby ruling it out. I hope I read Jed right as he doesn't want to answer me anonymously as to how Mizuno hooked up the plumbing, but if my guess is correct, this is not an issue.

Post Edit: I guess from reading more of the give and take that this was suppose to be clear from table 1. Assuming that this is correct, the results are remarkable. I don't think any small percentage error in the calorimeter is going to change the fact that huge excess heat comes from the device. The 300 watt power and the COP of >5 is just too large.

Anyway, thank you respectfully for continuing the conversation above without me and thank you Jed for translating.

Jed, as a mild suggestion, when you publish the final version of the paper you should make the above fact (that the cylinder is sealed off from the D2) more clear to the readers to eliminate their confusion, even for those who are "skilled in the art". I also would suggest a small schematic diagram of the piping showing the valves. Thank you for the good work.

Jed -- I ask a third time for a schematic of the D2 and vacuum plumbing.

Other posters -- I ask how do we _rule_ _out_ air being sucked in at higher temperatures and then chemically recombining with D2 to make D2O plus chemical heat from the enthalpy of reaction.

Any back of the envelope calculation will do based on pressure, as could mass spec output of the vacuum pump output gas showing no D2O.

Note: if the COP is truly 5 to 6 at 300 watts input, my gut feel says that 1500 watts to 1800 watts out would be really hard to mess up the calorimetry, even if we are completely wrong on things like Reynolds numbers. Simply running the unit with same pressure of helium as a control and having the same airflow past the cylinder, with the same 300 watts input -- it either gets a lot hotter or it doesn't. Measure it at the thermocouple on the cylinder or at the output of the airflow -- if it is a lot hotter than it works. Gut feel says the cylinder should be at least 50C hotter. How much gets transferred to the airflow I don't know, but it should be significant.

The exact COP is not important. Proof of the effect is important.

Other posters -- please help out and Jed, please help me with the diagram. The diagram from the JCMNS 2019 (earlier) paper shows "a valve to the vacuum system" and "valve to the QM system". I am guessing that QM means "Q-Mass" as described in step (2) on page 3 of that paper. Q-Mass is the mass spectrometer? It has to run at a partial vacuum to pull the gas thru the spectrometer.

Where is the D2 gas introduced? (Through which pipe.)

How is the pressure regulated?

Is the D2 gas supply metered?

Am I missing another paper that describes this in enough detail for me to figure this out?

Jed -- when you get a chance can you please go back to my questions for you from yesterday, i.e. starting with a schematic diagram of the vacuum and D2 gas system.

Thank you,

Anon

Quote from Alan Smith

2. You can overcome oil-vapour reflux - which is not a big problem with post-1980's pumps by inserting a filter to absorb stray goodies. We use a combination of alumina fleece, fritted glass, and'molecular seive' (specially treated zeolite beads).

I think that turbopumps both have less reverse gas getting into the system and of course much higher vacuum -- I think realizing 0.02 Pa is not a problem with the turbo pump vs the rougher will only do something like 100x that. You get what you pay for there.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You are confused. The airflow speed has nothing to do with the reactor temperature. It only affects the calorimeter air temperature. The reactor is a 20 kg stainless steel tube inside the calorimeter. The temperature inside the reactor is 317 deg C. It is heated by sheath heater and the cold fusion reaction. The temperature in the calorimeter chamber outside the reactor is 34 deg C. They are worlds apart.

...

Jed - you have pointed out that the reactor is insulated so that 75%+ of heat is transferred to the air stream. If you slow that down, you reduce the amount of heat expelled. Therefore the reactor casing temperature has to increase. In the case of no airflow the casing temperature must increase enough that all the power escapes through the insulation.

...

You are confusing, here, temperature and power. The casing temperature is determined by the power flux (claimed 300W active) the thermal resistance between casing and the airflow, and the airflow temperature. With slower air the thermal resistance increases because the boundary layer heats up more, as does all the air in the box. In fact you know well that if most power leaves the calorimeter via air, slowing the air must increase the temperature of the exit air and therefore decrease the amount the air cools the reactor casing for any fixed casing temperature.

My point above is that the reactor casing temperature (and therefore the gauze temperature) can be controlled by altering the airflow, as well as altering the heater power. You can get the same excess heat from R20 (see above - to possible magnetic effect from sheath heater) by reducing heater power but also reducing airflow to keep the reactor casing the same temperature.

...

I'm surprised others have not picked this up re R20 because the above thermal analysis is true for all exothermic temperature sensitive reactions that have the type of dependence Mizuno states. Higher COP means more unstable. If 50W delivers 300W, then 50W worth more insulation will deliver 300W without external power input.

Display More

THH,

1) 3 kinds of heat transport: Conduction, Convection, and Radiation.

2) If we reduce the convection, then it gets hotter until conduction and radiation bring it back into equilibrium.

3) Radiation goes as T^4, so that using radiation works to keep unit temperature more stable than relying on conduction and convection.

4) There is always a chance of thermal runaway, but as long as for each marginal increase in temperature (say of 1 degree) the heat transport away by radiation, conduction, and convection increases faster than the excess heat generated by the reaction, the reactor will be thermally stable.

5) Insulating the unit further or reducing the convection makes it more unstable, but the stability margins can be calculated (as an engineering exercise) once the effect is proven to work stable within the lab enough that basic measurements can be done.

6) Brillouin's E&M field pulse control mechanism appears to immediately increase or decrease rate of reaction excess heat, so would be more stable than a pure thermal control system (assuming it works and is proven).

7) Although you get frustrated, I appreciate your input to the discussion. Please stay with us. I encourage everyone here to be extra polite and professional in using this blog to avoid losing contributors. It takes a few extra minutes to clean up your comments.