The data collected during the October ECAT testing is a virtual gold mine to
explore. All you need is a sharp pick and a strong back to dig out the wealth.
All of us would rather have mined the placer deposit that would have existed
had Mr. Rossi placed the thermocouples in a better location and actually
measured the input water flow rates, but it is necessary to use information at
our disposal.
I have found additional important information left behind as clues contained
within the temperature reading referred to as T2. My first document relating
to a portion of the data can be found in Ny Teknik
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3303817.ece/BINARY/Updated+analysis+Ecat+Oct+6+Roberson+%28pdf%29
which will not be repeated here but is a good reference.
Obtain a detailed graph of T2 versus time from my previous document mentioned
above or by using Mats Lewan’s data. You must have a graph which includes all
of the data points in order to see the fine details necessary to follow this
discussion.
Please note that there are two very different time constants visible affecting
the temperature curve from the time mark of 13000 through approximately 23000
on the X-axis. The first one I want to discuss is the slowly decaying
exponential temperature droop occurring throughout this time region. This
curve can be identified by taking the value at 13000 and proceeding to the
right in time all the way to 23000. You must subtract the bump in the total
curve occurring from 16000 to 21000 time stamp. This is a result of behavior
associated with the second time constant which I will talk about later.
This first time constant is responsible for the self sustaining mode and occurs
due to the design of Rossi’s device. Some form of thermal insulation is placed
between the active cores and the heat sink inside the ECAT. If I were Rossi, I
would first try using air as this insulation by adjusting the amount of core
metal box contact to the heat sink thereby leaving an engineered air gap. This
type of design would be easy to adjust as you attempt to balance conducted heat
movement outward, which cools the core, versus allowing the core to remain at
an ideal temperature enabling desired energy output.
The better your ability to engineer this balance, the longer the self
sustaining mode will continue. The consequence of too much insulation would be
core melting. The present adjustment seems to be functioning well enough for
Rossi’s first customer.
Of course this hypothesis depends upon the information supplied by Mr. Rossi to
my request on his web site earlier. He stated that the energy was mostly if
not all released in the form of radiation. This fact is critical as it allows
him to separate the heat generation mechanism from the energy generation
component. This is a major factor since he now can heat the core with his
electric heater and have minimal interference from the heat released by
conversion of the radiant energy within the heat sink. Positive feedback is
reduced and control is enhanced.
Soon I hope that Mr. Rossi will reveal the energy release function. I suspect
that most of the energy will be in the form of high energy X-rays or low energy
gammas that pass through the insulator. I have understood the reasons put
forth that suggest that there cannot be any form of radiation to perform the
job, but somehow it works. I suspect that there is a point being overlooked.
I want to briefly discuss the second time constant and its implications. I
propose that the electric heater is attached to the heat sink and somewhat
insulated from the core modules. This conclusion can be drawn by analyzing the
bump in the T2 curve that is maximized at around 18000 time stamp. This
response stood out to me as strange when I was attempting to calculate the COP
of the ECAT from the data set. This bump is obviously a result of the
filtering of the final long power input pulse that occurs just prior to
entering self sustaining mode. You should notice that it has entirely been
dissipated within a short period of time compared to the long time constant
associated with the core insulation.
It is very clear that power inputted to the heating resistor is subjected to
the heat sink cooling. Heat energy within the heat sink is able to rapidly
conduct to the water within the ECAT enclosure. This offers proof for the
skeptics that Jed Rothwell and I are correct in our assertions that the fact
that heat continues to be produced for hours at a high level is proof of LENR
activity. There is further evidence to support this supposition. The final
curve beginning at 30000 time stamp proves this quite well. Note that the
temperature of T2 falls like a proverbial rock beginning shortly after the
hydrogen is released from the core region. There is a short period after the
LENR activity has ceased and built in delays are satisfied. Within
approximately 800 seconds, the decay begins at a rate similar to that seen due
to the second time constant which establishes the conduction rate for heat
stored within the heat sink. Review the falling edge of the pulse waveform
around 19000 time stamp to see a similar decay rate. I see absolute proof of
LENR activity by pursuing this line of reasoning.
I hope that Mr. Rossi reads this analysis and considers placing the heating
element in close thermal contact to the core modules. Both the heating element
and the cores should be removed from close thermal contact to the heat sink.
If this is enacted, the COP will improve by a factor of 2 to 3 or more
(estimate) and the heat required to start the LENR function likewise reduced.
This will be a major improvement in the performance.
This document is based upon observations obtained by reviewing the Excel file
submitted by Mats Lewan and statements attributed to Mr. Rossi in his journal.
I have mined the T2 data deeply and made inferences which might turn out to be
incorrect. The logic applied supports my conclusions.
David Roberson
