I have been modelling Rossi Like systems for several years now. On many occasions I have discussed my theories on vortex and have offered a simple static model to others interested in playing with the system parameters.
A document is being written that explains how a positive thermal feedback system can have significant stable gain even though many find it difficult to believe since the output power is many times greater than the required controling input power. There is a common misconception that the output will over power the input leading to self destruction of the device. On more than one occasion I have argued with skeptics on vortex but could not explain how this feedback process works in words that they understood or believed. Over the years, I have generated models that use spice programs, Excel, and just about every type of mathematical program that I could locate and develop with. All of these efforts show that my conclusions are reasonable when using the assumptions that I make concerning the thermal power generation behavior of LENR materials. The lack of solid data associated with the release of thermal power by the core materials keeps me from proving that my theories are accurate. However, if the required data ever becomes available I suppose that my models can be adjusted to take any unusual characteristics into account. My major concerns are that the core has some type of lag with respect to when it begins to release power upon application of a constant temperature to its material, and that its generated power drifts over significant time frames when a constant temperature is applied. Both of these issues will require modifications. The above problems are going to have to be resolved if they are proven to exist when data is released by Rossi or whomever else is forthcoming. It would be ridiculous for me to hold up my work until all of that information becomes widely distributed, so I am going to release a simple time domain model that others can toy with as they desire. This particular toy model is not based upon actual ECAT parameters but instead uses coefficients that are small and well defined so that the underlying behavior can be well understood. I have an Excel like program that backs up the selection of the coefficients to make their values easy to calculate. I can set the location of the important device negative slope at will with this program as well as carefully adjust the type of system that is generated. It is trivial to obtain coefficients for either type 1, type 2, or type 3 designs. One can then obtain a more thorough understand of how the COP is influenced by these choices. Within the last few days I began working with a freely available modeling program named Xcos, which comes attached to the master program named Scilab. I have used that pair on several occasions before and find it to be quite simple to modify models, etc. using a GUI that is easy to understand. The flexibility of Xcos is amazing and one can rapidly modify his test system to use different types of signal sources and model parameters. I recommend that others on vortex obtain a copy of these programs for general modeling. The type 2 model I am offering appears to exhibit a COP of 7 when allowing the built in PWM control to operate. It has a core thermal power generation function that is second order in nature and an output thermal power release function that contains a linear term for conduction as well as a forth order term related to radiation. Again, my model is simplified and not directly pertaining to the ECAT, but someone can adjust the variable coefficients to make it fall into line. I will be available to work with anyone that wishes to accept that task. Send me a private email and I will email back my Xcos model. I can also send a copy of the Excel file that offers design support if requested. This is a very simple Excel file, but it can be used to rapidly obtain coefficients to use within the Xcos model. Trial and error is not a good way to adjust the Xcos model as I found out the hard way. If you review Rossi's patent you will see that an air gap separates the heated fuel chamber from the cooling surface. This is a very important aspect of his design. It allows radiation power to become the most efficient way for internally generated power to escape the core at elevated device temperatures. The forth order function is put there to outweigh the thermal power generation process once operation is established at high temperatures. By this means he may be able to convert a potentially unstable type 3 device into a type 2 device that does not latch up or meltdown. Other replicaters might want to follow his lead. Dave
