I am beginning to suspect that Rossi may have figured out what his reaction
is really doing. The core principle of the nanoplasmonic reaction involves
the process of how the micro and nano particles come together into
aggregations to form the nuclear active sites. These sites are the spaces
between the aggregations of particles that form naturally in a dusty plasma.
The process of nanoparticle control including aggregation control driven by
electrostatic attraction and repulsion is a well-known and widely used
mechanism in nano-engineering.
The first control mechanism developed to control particle aggregation is
electrostatic control.
See this abstract for details:
http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-5148/index.html
Using electrostatic based control, it may be possible in the E-Cat to
control the nature of nanoparticle behavior by using electronic control. By
producing a negative or positive electrostatic potential in the hydrogen
envelop, both a positive and negative reaction feedback process can be
initiated using electrostatic control based on plasma temperature sensing
as an input parameter.
If this is the control mechanism that Rossi has developed, it would be a
very important advance is Ni/H technology and reaction understanding.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Rossi made a statement on his Journal recently that seemed puzzling at the
time. He mentioned that he was turning on the drive power for 1/4 of the
time and allowing the device to drift in the self sustaining mode for the
other 3/4. He further told us that he was working of having the ECAT
return *all* of the drive power even during the active drive time.
At the time, I did not give this statement much thought, but today I was
reviewing the operation of my latest computer model and found his statement
revealing. If you assume that he is driving the core with input at a rapid
periodic rate so that the output power variation is well filtered by the
time constants of the system then this goal would only yield a COP of 4.
We know that he plans to guarantee a COP of at least 6 so I believe that we
can dismiss a very short period PWM drive function. The model therefore
points us in the direction of a slower process. Either technique can be
used to achieve a stable(with great care) ECAT control system, but the
slower pulse rate at this duty cycle can be induced to reach a higher COP.
The reason a lower period drive achieves higher gain is because of the
shape of the internally generated power waveform. Most of my original
model work included this type of plan since it is easier to generate power
input efficiently with rail to rail digital signals. I assumed that Rossi
was going for the easiest and quickest method for his design since there is
less risk involved.
The internal core power generation mechanism exhibits an interesting
behavior when the thermal runaway temperature threshold is approached.
There is a time constant associated with the thermal balances acting in
conjunction with the net thermal mass which approaches infinity at that
exact point. Of course, Rossi can not afford to actually reach that level
without active cooling since his device would melt with a tiny error in
temperature. But apparently he is willing to come close to that level to
reach his COP goal.
As I mentioned above, the thermal time constant approaches infinity as a
limit when the internal core temperature approaches thermal runaway. This
results in the core holding onto the elevated temperature and associated
power generation level for a time that extends in duration. This is a non
linear process which effectively generates much more power than a linear
time constant system. Most of the systems that we deal with have linear
time constants and therefore that is what we tend to expect. The ECAT
depends upon the other effect for its elevated COP.
This conclusion is based upon my computer models and of course might be in
error due to the lack of data from Rossi. I believe that the trends can be
reasonably derived from the model behavior and the statements that Rossi
leaks to us on rare occasions is well supported by the model. Unless he
has a computer model much like mine, we can be assured that the ECAT is
real since I can not imagine how he would guess at this type of mechanism
without some form of evidence in support of his leaks.
Dave
