Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
Is that what all that ruckus was outside last night? Huh. On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Dave, It’s New Year’s eve… Go have a drink and give the grey-matter a break!!! J Happy New Year, -mark *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:13 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon I constructed a new computer model of the ECAT that allows me to modify the variables quickly and made some interesting observations. If the internal temperature of the device reaches the thermal run away level, then it is on its way toward self destruction as Rossi has mentioned on several occasions. It is speculated that he could still reverse the action if some form of active cooling is incorporated within his design to pull it back from the brink. My latest model suggests that the amount of deviation away from the thermal run away temperature determines how much cooling is required to salvage the system. The other side of the equation is also valid. If we assume that the drive is removed at the optimum time, which is when the internal temperature is close to but slightly below the run away point, then the device will immediately begin to cool off and head toward room temperature. This behavior is a typical positive feedback loop where the change in direction reinforces itself and the action gains momentum with time. The longer you wait before you correct the direction, the harder the task becomes. With this in mind, I toyed with the new model to see if it might be possible to use this behavior to our advantage. The model suggests that this is the case and that the net COP of the device can be quite large if it is possible to keep the control input power pulses to low values. For this to operate it is necessary for Rossi to run the ECAT at very near the thermal run away trip point. The closer, the better and this reminds me of tickling a dragon. You better be careful or it might get angry and you know the consequences. I initiated the output power by supplying a large power pulse which is required to push the operation into the negative resistance region so that the positive feedback takes over and the modeled temperature begins to climb toward the thermal run away level. The temperature climb takes place while the large drive level is active so that control is available. Once close operation to the trip point is achieved, the power input is rapidly removed. This removal of input power is the control method which causes the positive feedback system to reverse direction and begin its path toward cooling to room temperature. Then, my new test control concept is put into action. I monitor the internal feedback power which falls rapidly as the device cools even though the temperature and output power falls quite a bit less due to the polynomial power effect. The reversal can be achieved by supplying power greater than the difference between the self sustaining power and the internally generated power. The actual power required approaches zero if the temperature can be kept at a tiny amount below the thermal runaway temperature. If active cooling is available, then both sides of the trip point could be used. The model demonstrates a very large COP, but of course changes in the environment such as the temperature of the coolant and its flow rate as well as many other factors must be considered to determine a safe operation temperature band. And, since the ECAT is not available to test it is not possible to establish real time constants for accurate modeling. With these constraints I have constructed a very general model that can be used to generate concepts and to see how some of the variables interact. I have no way to obtain delay information at this time and of course, that will complicate the performance greatly if excessive. I want to mention that the recent statements that Rossi has made on his blog strongly suggest that the ECAT operates in a manner that is consistent with my model. It is interesting that I can immediately place his numbers into my model in a location that makes sense. The latest discussion of the mouse having a reverse relationship to the main cat does seem out of line unless he is using words to obscure the meaning. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The latest discussion of the mouse having a reverse relationship to the main cat does seem out of line unless he is using words to obscure the meaning. This was my thought, too. I wonder if Daniel Rocha's detail concerning MgH had any connection to this. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
Rossi’s latest words do not make sense. He states that the mouse suppresses the cat when it is activated. But this mouse behavior is inherently dangerous. If the power goes out when the cat needs the mouse to suppress temperature rise, the mouse is not available and the reactor will overheat and be destroyed. A power failure must cause the cat to die and that only can happen when the mouse stimulates the cat when the mouse receives power from the external power source. On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: The latest discussion of the mouse having a reverse relationship to the main cat does seem out of line unless he is using words to obscure the meaning. This was my thought, too. I wonder if Daniel Rocha's detail concerning MgH had any connection to this. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
I remember that he was talking of the risk of power outage, and that they anticipated that . It looked strange for me since I imagined that without power it would simply die... Now it looks clearer. I don't know if it is real, but sure a negative retro-action is needed, and that it is done through electricity is a good point. as I said, maybe it is possible through 90 degree phase shift done by each of the chained LENR reactor, as if they were producing heat proportionally to a power increase and not to power value I imagine Rossi is not enough precise and the control is more subtle than my proposal... Since it is controlled by bang-bang cycles it seems more subtle than my linear system vision. 2014/1/1 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com Rossi’s latest words do not make sense. He states that the mouse suppresses the cat when it is activated. But this mouse behavior is inherently dangerous. If the power goes out when the cat needs the mouse to suppress temperature rise, the mouse is not available and the reactor will overheat and be destroyed. A power failure must cause the cat to die and that only can happen when the mouse stimulates the cat when the mouse receives power from the external power source. On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: The latest discussion of the mouse having a reverse relationship to the main cat does seem out of line unless he is using words to obscure the meaning. This was my thought, too. I wonder if Daniel Rocha's detail concerning MgH had any connection to this. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I don't know if it is real, but sure a negative retro-action is needed, and that it is done through electricity is a good point. If the mouse provides active cooling, how can it have a COP in excess of 1, as has been mentioned in comments elsewhere? Have I misunderstood something about COP? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I don't know if it is real, but sure a negative retro-action is needed, and that it is done through electricity is a good point. If the mouse provides active cooling, how can it have a COP in excess of 1, as has been mentioned in comments elsewhere? Have I misunderstood something about COP? The duty cycle of the mouse would have to be 100%.
Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
it is a question of working point. it may be a negative retroaction only at working temperature. Of course heat is positive retroaction at the beginning (a requirement more honestly) I suspect Rossi play with loading and temperature relationship, which allow non linear effects... anyway we miss data. it is only speculation. what I can say is that it can be complicated, and we find similar situation in electronic systems. imagine negative resistance, negative inductance... it exists, but around a working point. 2014/1/1 Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I don't know if it is real, but sure a negative retro-action is needed, and that it is done through electricity is a good point. If the mouse provides active cooling, how can it have a COP in excess of 1, as has been mentioned in comments elsewhere? Have I misunderstood something about COP? Eric
RE: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
Is there a method to electrically modify thermal transfer rate. electrically slowing the thermal transfer rate of the reactive material making it easier to reach the critical zone and then be pulse width modulated to allow the energy sink to prevent the dragon tickle becoming destructive runaway. Fran From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 2:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know if it is real, but sure a negative retro-action is needed, and that it is done through electricity is a good point. If the mouse provides active cooling, how can it have a COP in excess of 1, as has been mentioned in comments elsewhere? Have I misunderstood something about COP? The duty cycle of the mouse would have to be 100%.
RE: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
From: Eric Walker Alain Sepeda wrote: I don't know if it is real, but sure a negative retro-action is needed, and that it is done through electricity is a good point. If the mouse provides active cooling, how can it have a COP in excess of 1, as has been mentioned in comments elsewhere? Have I misunderstood something about COP? Although this confusion seems to be language based (a Rossi-ism) there is particular interest in getting the story correct now – which interest is based on past results in the context of the negative energy anomaly which was documented by Ahern - and included in the EPRI report or his work. With a few of the specialty alloys Ahern tested, notably titanium based IIRC - adding electrical energy produced anomalous net cooling over time. That’s right, it produced real NET endotherm and not a splitting of hot and cold streams so that one appeared to be cold at the expense of the other. IOW - this was NOT a magneto caloric effect and or other known effect. Imagine something like a closed system in which 100 watts of electricity is input but only 75 watts of NET heat is being released from all sources and no heat was stored. A net of 25 watts of real power “seems to disappear” from 3-space and this is continuous for an extended time frame (not a phase-change or recalescence effect). Since this was a real documented negative energy anomaly, in the semantic sense, then it could be said that if COP measures the divergence of input from output according to standard thermal efficiency of 100%, then the result could be called a “COP greater than one in negative energy”. I do not think this is what Rossi is talking about, however, but who knows? The guy may be a greater genius than anyone suspects.
[Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
I constructed a new computer model of the ECAT that allows me to modify the variables quickly and made some interesting observations. If the internal temperature of the device reaches the thermal run away level, then it is on its way toward self destruction as Rossi has mentioned on several occasions. It is speculated that he could still reverse the action if some form of active cooling is incorporated within his design to pull it back from the brink. My latest model suggests that the amount of deviation away from the thermal run away temperature determines how much cooling is required to salvage the system. The other side of the equation is also valid. If we assume that the drive is removed at the optimum time, which is when the internal temperature is close to but slightly below the run away point, then the device will immediately begin to cool off and head toward room temperature. This behavior is a typical positive feedback loop where the change in direction reinforces itself and the action gains momentum with time. The longer you wait before you correct the direction, the harder the task becomes. With this in mind, I toyed with the new model to see if it might be possible to use this behavior to our advantage. The model suggests that this is the case and that the net COP of the device can be quite large if it is possible to keep the control input power pulses to low values. For this to operate it is necessary for Rossi to run the ECAT at very near the thermal run away trip point. The closer, the better and this reminds me of tickling a dragon. You better be careful or it might get angry and you know the consequences. I initiated the output power by supplying a large power pulse which is required to push the operation into the negative resistance region so that the positive feedback takes over and the modeled temperature begins to climb toward the thermal run away level. The temperature climb takes place while the large drive level is active so that control is available. Once close operation to the trip point is achieved, the power input is rapidly removed. This removal of input power is the control method which causes the positive feedback system to reverse direction and begin its path toward cooling to room temperature. Then, my new test control concept is put into action. I monitor the internal feedback power which falls rapidly as the device cools even though the temperature and output power falls quite a bit less due to the polynomial power effect. The reversal can be achieved by supplying power greater than the difference between the self sustaining power and the internally generated power. The actual power required approaches zero if the temperature can be kept at a tiny amount below the thermal runaway temperature. If active cooling is available, then both sides of the trip point could be used. The model demonstrates a very large COP, but of course changes in the environment such as the temperature of the coolant and its flow rate as well as many other factors must be considered to determine a safe operation temperature band. And, since the ECAT is not available to test it is not possible to establish real time constants for accurate modeling. With these constraints I have constructed a very general model that can be used to generate concepts and to see how some of the variables interact. I have no way to obtain delay information at this time and of course, that will complicate the performance greatly if excessive. I want to mention that the recent statements that Rossi has made on his blog strongly suggest that the ECAT operates in a manner that is consistent with my model. It is interesting that I can immediately place his numbers into my model in a location that makes sense. The latest discussion of the mouse having a reverse relationship to the main cat does seem out of line unless he is using words to obscure the meaning. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
Dave, It's New Year's eve. Go have a drink and give the grey-matter a break!!! J Happy New Year, -mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon I constructed a new computer model of the ECAT that allows me to modify the variables quickly and made some interesting observations. If the internal temperature of the device reaches the thermal run away level, then it is on its way toward self destruction as Rossi has mentioned on several occasions. It is speculated that he could still reverse the action if some form of active cooling is incorporated within his design to pull it back from the brink. My latest model suggests that the amount of deviation away from the thermal run away temperature determines how much cooling is required to salvage the system. The other side of the equation is also valid. If we assume that the drive is removed at the optimum time, which is when the internal temperature is close to but slightly below the run away point, then the device will immediately begin to cool off and head toward room temperature. This behavior is a typical positive feedback loop where the change in direction reinforces itself and the action gains momentum with time. The longer you wait before you correct the direction, the harder the task becomes. With this in mind, I toyed with the new model to see if it might be possible to use this behavior to our advantage. The model suggests that this is the case and that the net COP of the device can be quite large if it is possible to keep the control input power pulses to low values. For this to operate it is necessary for Rossi to run the ECAT at very near the thermal run away trip point. The closer, the better and this reminds me of tickling a dragon. You better be careful or it might get angry and you know the consequences. I initiated the output power by supplying a large power pulse which is required to push the operation into the negative resistance region so that the positive feedback takes over and the modeled temperature begins to climb toward the thermal run away level. The temperature climb takes place while the large drive level is active so that control is available. Once close operation to the trip point is achieved, the power input is rapidly removed. This removal of input power is the control method which causes the positive feedback system to reverse direction and begin its path toward cooling to room temperature. Then, my new test control concept is put into action. I monitor the internal feedback power which falls rapidly as the device cools even though the temperature and output power falls quite a bit less due to the polynomial power effect. The reversal can be achieved by supplying power greater than the difference between the self sustaining power and the internally generated power. The actual power required approaches zero if the temperature can be kept at a tiny amount below the thermal runaway temperature. If active cooling is available, then both sides of the trip point could be used. The model demonstrates a very large COP, but of course changes in the environment such as the temperature of the coolant and its flow rate as well as many other factors must be considered to determine a safe operation temperature band. And, since the ECAT is not available to test it is not possible to establish real time constants for accurate modeling. With these constraints I have constructed a very general model that can be used to generate concepts and to see how some of the variables interact. I have no way to obtain delay information at this time and of course, that will complicate the performance greatly if excessive. I want to mention that the recent statements that Rossi has made on his blog strongly suggest that the ECAT operates in a manner that is consistent with my model. It is interesting that I can immediately place his numbers into my model in a location that makes sense. The latest discussion of the mouse having a reverse relationship to the main cat does seem out of line unless he is using words to obscure the meaning. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon
God bless Dick Clark! On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 12:45 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Dave, It’s New Year’s eve… Go have a drink and give the grey-matter a break!!! J Happy New Year, -mark *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:13 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:Tickle The Dragon I constructed a new computer model of the ECAT that allows me to modify the variables quickly and made some interesting observations. If the internal temperature of the device reaches the thermal run away level, then it is on its way toward self destruction as Rossi has mentioned on several occasions. It is speculated that he could still reverse the action if some form of active cooling is incorporated within his design to pull it back from the brink. My latest model suggests that the amount of deviation away from the thermal run away temperature determines how much cooling is required to salvage the system. The other side of the equation is also valid. If we assume that the drive is removed at the optimum time, which is when the internal temperature is close to but slightly below the run away point, then the device will immediately begin to cool off and head toward room temperature. This behavior is a typical positive feedback loop where the change in direction reinforces itself and the action gains momentum with time. The longer you wait before you correct the direction, the harder the task becomes. With this in mind, I toyed with the new model to see if it might be possible to use this behavior to our advantage. The model suggests that this is the case and that the net COP of the device can be quite large if it is possible to keep the control input power pulses to low values. For this to operate it is necessary for Rossi to run the ECAT at very near the thermal run away trip point. The closer, the better and this reminds me of tickling a dragon. You better be careful or it might get angry and you know the consequences. I initiated the output power by supplying a large power pulse which is required to push the operation into the negative resistance region so that the positive feedback takes over and the modeled temperature begins to climb toward the thermal run away level. The temperature climb takes place while the large drive level is active so that control is available. Once close operation to the trip point is achieved, the power input is rapidly removed. This removal of input power is the control method which causes the positive feedback system to reverse direction and begin its path toward cooling to room temperature. Then, my new test control concept is put into action. I monitor the internal feedback power which falls rapidly as the device cools even though the temperature and output power falls quite a bit less due to the polynomial power effect. The reversal can be achieved by supplying power greater than the difference between the self sustaining power and the internally generated power. The actual power required approaches zero if the temperature can be kept at a tiny amount below the thermal runaway temperature. If active cooling is available, then both sides of the trip point could be used. The model demonstrates a very large COP, but of course changes in the environment such as the temperature of the coolant and its flow rate as well as many other factors must be considered to determine a safe operation temperature band. And, since the ECAT is not available to test it is not possible to establish real time constants for accurate modeling. With these constraints I have constructed a very general model that can be used to generate concepts and to see how some of the variables interact. I have no way to obtain delay information at this time and of course, that will complicate the performance greatly if excessive. I want to mention that the recent statements that Rossi has made on his blog strongly suggest that the ECAT operates in a manner that is consistent with my model. It is interesting that I can immediately place his numbers into my model in a location that makes sense. The latest discussion of the mouse having a reverse relationship to the main cat does seem out of line unless he is using words to obscure the meaning. Dave
