I have gone to reasonable lengths in earlier posts to explain why having drive
power available could actually be a positive factor in a thermal feedback
design. It is not obvious by any means, but one can achieve relatively high
gains of output to input power when output power is partially fed back to the
input. I will spare you the explanation at this time, but you really do need
some form of input power control in order to prevent thermal runaway.
And yes, I have gone to lengths discussing how active coolant control could
achieve about the same and some additionally useful goals. You will not get an
arguement from me about how valuable that technique can be.
I understand your frustration with Rossi and what he states. If he is found to
be lying to us and have no significant excess power I for one will be quite
pissed!
My current plan is to attempt to come up with a scientifically valid scenario
that explains how this particular demonstration could be faked while under the
observation of several experts. This type of trick should require the meters
to read in a manner that does not draw excessive attention. I believe I am
close to finding a way to do it.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 4:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
On 08/24/2016 03:31 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback. The feedback will
even compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well. If
some internal heat is being generated by Rossi's device that varies with
time, the feedback can be designed to keep the net thermal output constant.
I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of
feedback. A well designed system is generally more stable than an
uncontrolled one.
For the last five years Rossi has been doing similar demos, and he has
never, ever mentioned the use of feedback to control the power in order to
match the water flow rate.
He also never, ever explained exactly how the heater power is supposed
to control the reaction.
He also never, ever explained how it can be "dangerous" to run an ecat
with the heater shut off. He just said it was, and that that is why he must
always have an electric heater going inside the things when they're running.
The only way it could be "dangerous" to operate them without a heater is
if cranking up the heat would somehow shut down the reaction -- otherwise,
just exactly what do you do if it starts to run away? Turning off the
heater isn't going to help at that point -- among other things, the thermal
energy produced by the reaction is supposedly far, far larger than the
electrical energy of the heater! The electric heater just makes it hot,
which the reaction itself is already doing; to kill the reaction you need a
way to make it cold. Turning up the cooling water flow rate would make a
whole lot more sense as a way to SCRAM the reaction, if it's ever needed --
but that, of course, wouldn't provide an excuse to keep the electric heater
going throughout the entire test.
"Feedback" is something his supporters have frequently assumed, in order
to explain the unexplainable. Rossi doesn't even hand-wave it away, AFAIK.
He just ignores the fact that he's claiming something ridiculous when he
produces "dry steam" at the boiling point with a fixed input flow rate and
no feedback mechanism.
This year-long test was apparently roughly the same as his earliest
tests, which were done entirely without any automatic feedback mechanism,
and a fixed (manually set) power level applied to the heaters. (Except that
he was caught apparently cranking up the power to the electric heater at one
point during one test, but that was something he denied, not something he
said was necessary to match flow rate to output power.)
And that is why I, at least, am concerned about "feedback".
And BTW who the heck wants 1 atmosphere of steam at boiling?
Superheating it at least a few tens of degrees would make it a whole lot
more useful for just about any application you care to name. It seems like
he must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to tune the power level of the
system to match the water flow rate in order to guarantee the steam is "low
grade", which seems entirely pointless ... except that it makes it possible
to pass off hot water as steam.
For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can
compensate for it. Do not let the use of negative feedback concern you.
That is a non issue.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
It appears that Rossi could have regulated the
output power by sensing the un boiled water
temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting
the individual heating drive elements.
As Stephen Lawrence pointed out, the output power is
stable and unvarying. That seems to rule out adjusting the
heating drive elements.
The power is not perfectly stable.
- Jed
