I agree that most people run into a mental roadblock when they try to understand how thermal input that is of much smaller magnitude than that which is generated by the ECAT is capable of controlling the reaction. It seems obvious that a small portion of the output could simply find its way back to replace that initial input and keep the device moving toward thermal run away.
I admit that I had the same concerns when I first began modeling the process a couple of years ago. My expectations were that I would witness thermal run away as expected, but Rossi spoon fed us with tiny hints suggesting that a COP of 6 was the best he could achieve and I asked myself why this limit and not a lower one. So, I generated a model to achieve a better understanding of the process. Rossi also spoke of a duty cycled power input waveform and even described it in details. We have always suspected that he tends to feed misinformation to confuse competitors so I took this information with a great deal of skepticism. So, I constructed a simple toy spice model and let it run while I varied the major parameters. To my initial amazement, I was able to achieve control of the positive feedback process while calculating a COP that was in the vicinity of 6! The COP can be modified over quite a range of values while stable operation was possible, but the greater the total COP, the closer to thermal destruction he has to operate. To have his device run with the desired COP of 6 required a high degree of accuracy in maintaining the core temperature peak value and a small error would result in loss of control with simple thermal feedback from a heat source. An active controller using strong cooling would be much more stable when using a good algorithm. The key process parameter I discovered when playing with my models is that positive feedback can allow the core temperature to move in both directions. That is, the temperature can be increasing ever faster or can be decreasing ever faster as the feedback gains ground. This behavior suggests that operation at this fine balance point might be possible and it only requires a tiny amount of drive heat energy if tightly controlled. The balance point occurs when the thermal energy being generated by the core at its operating temperature is exactly equal to the energy being extracted by the external system. The thermal mass of the core and other components smooth out and delay the temperature movement and allow the controller sufficient time to act. Furthermore, as long as the internally generated heat energy of the core is slightly less than the demand from the load, the core will begin to cool off when the drive heat power is turned off. I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 10:32 am Subject: [Vo]:Thermal inertia This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a rticle/view/69/145 There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal input. In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the reaction (P-out > P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? Why not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such as if it was at COP=6 ? There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more like a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that the second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there is no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the downslope can be abrupt . Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve at an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer characteristics may not be adequate to maintain a positive feedback plateau, at least not without an outside source of heat. This may not be a clear verbalization of the thermodynamics, and perhaps someone can word it more clearly - but it explains the need for the "goldilocks" or 3-bear mode of reaction control for E-Cat. (not too hot and not too cold)
