by the way,
this discussion raise a possibility, and doubt of doubt...
the design of defkalion, and problems of rossi seems rational and linked to
real problems, that if not straight, are to be expected.
this give credibility to the fact that :
- defkalion have worked on a real case, fighting realistic problems,
finding realistic solutions
- rossi have worked on similar case, with a wrong solution, leading to
expectable and observed problems
- by the way, NI tools are not enough to stabilize the system, all the
machine design have to be rebuild. probably the e-kitten will never be
self-sustained (too cool), and COP shoul be modest (6!).
not sure, not direct observation, but for a fake you should expect
- much better results ("demo effect" happens only on real test)
- discrepancy not coherent with the problem you can expect from a real
critical reactor.
I don't throw away the hard critics about Rossi, that should raise strong
caution,
but the total scam thesis is hard to swallow.
lack of competence and dishonest hiding is more credible...
and also if defkalion is a fake company, they have very good faker
engineers, who can fake real problems and solutions, much farther than what
is need to get cash.
ouf...
2012/1/23 Alain Sepeda <[email protected]>
> yes, good explanation.
>
> however if the reaction curve ( P//T) is more than linear, you should
> avoid getting higher than a given temp,
> otherwise the reaction positive feedback will overcome the cooling
> negative feedback and start a runaway.
> this is what happens probably as you says with old e-cat...
>
> probably the regulator of Defkalion is quite smart, with feedback on
> "Heat" and not only "temp", as I can guess from their
> usage of the "calorimetric" module... regulation being on the derivative
> (heat) also, on not only on signal (temp)...
>
> with your explanation I start to understand even more their (good simple
> professional) design.
>
> It is as if you give alien antigravity engine to car manufacturer... they
> won't produce flying saucer bur cars respecting the safety regulation from
> California to europe and japan, from SuV to trucks and micro-cars...
>
> (thanks for explanations)
>
> 2012/1/22 Robert Lynn <[email protected]>
>
>> I am pretty sure Rossi's stability and control problem stems from relying
>> on heat transfer through a large temperature differential (low Watts per
>> degree) to cool a reaction that has a positive temperature coefficient (ie
>> gets more powerful with increasing temperature).
>>
>> The simple fix is to use high temp coolants with greater Watts per degree
>> heat transfer rates via fins or coolant tubes through the reactor etc.
>>
>> As an example (using numbers plucked from air) say you are using a heat
>> transfer setup that removes 10W per degree of temperature difference with
>> water at 100°C and Ni powder that produces 4kW at 500°C. This 400°C
>> temperature difference results in 4kW of heat transfer. Now assume that
>> your power output doubles to 8kW when the Ni powder temperature rises to
>> 600°C (ie positive temperature coefficient). Unfortunates the 500°C
>> temperature differential only increases your heat transfer rate to 5kW.
>> Result is uncontrollable thermal runaway; E-cat go boom (or melt).
>>
>> Now instead if you use a coolant at 450°C and heat transfer setup that
>> removes 80W of heat for every degree of temperature difference then with Ni
>> temprature of 500°C you get 4kW of power and 4kW of heat transfer as
>> before, but at 600°C you get 12kW of heat transfer from only 8kW of heat
>> output. Result being that the reaction can no longer run away or increase
>> above 4kW 500°C.
>>
>> Most engineers would quickly see this consequence from the nature of
>> increasing power with temperature (apparent from almost all reports of
>> gas-nanopowder LENR). I think Defaflion got it straight away with their
>> high temp coolant, but I don't think Rossi did (or does?) as he has
>> persisted in using low pressure water as a coolant.
>>
>>
>> On 22 January 2012 20:30, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It is strange that anyone would want an unproved and expensive
>>> device. I suspect that Rossi thinks that he can work with NI and stabilize
>>> the thing, and this may be true. My personal opinion is that some serious
>>> engineering work will be required to make the system safe and repeatable.
>>> If I were Rossi, I would be looking into a method of core cooling that is
>>> active and powerful. The core itself probably should be operating in the
>>> thermal run away mode to get the COP into an acceptable range while the
>>> cooling needs to be able to prevent additional heat energy from resulting
>>> in much higher core internal temperature. The approach used by
>>> Defkalion appears to address my issues. Their design includes a very tight
>>> thermal control of the core region by the 6 coolant paths. To startup,
>>> they would reduce the coolant flow to a minimum allowing the electrical
>>> heater to easily raise the core temperature. Once the core reaches an
>>> unstable temperature, it will begin to heat rapidly on its own. At that
>>> point the coolant flow rate can be increased to absorb the excess heat and
>>> achieve the final desired operating temperature. All of the heat energy
>>> required to keep the device operating would now be supplied by the core.
>>> The overall COP at this point is infinite in the core itself, but the
>>> control and pump energy drains would make the net COP as specified.
>>>
>>> Rossi may not understand the problems that he faces in this task.
>>> Actually, no one may really know at this point. The model I am using is
>>> quite simple, but makes sense to me. That is no proof that it is accurate
>>> however.
>>>
>>> Why would we expect Rossi to reveal to us his major problems? Most
>>> engineers assume that the problems will be defeated sooner or later and see
>>> no reason to air the dirty laundry. He has a positive outlook and has
>>> overcome many obstacles in his life and these issues appear minor in
>>> comparison. To him, the solutions most likely seem just a little way off.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mary Yugo <[email protected]>
>>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 3:01 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mary, there are serious problems with Rossi's demonstrations that we
>>>> are all aware of. It is apparent to me that he has a very difficult
>>>> problem trying to maintain stability of the power output and I have been
>>>> doing some interesting simulation that tends to support this claim. The
>>>> October 6 test data shows a clear fingerprint of LENR heat production which
>>>> I hope to explain soon. All of the other models that I have seen thus far
>>>> do not respond in a manner that comes even close to explaining the
>>>> anomaly. These models have been based upon energy storage and release from
>>>> a large mass of material inside the smaller cube. A better explanation for
>>>> the curve can be obtained by assuming that a large peak of excess thermal
>>>> energy is released at the end of the drive cycle due to an inherently
>>>> unstable thermal run away process that is quenched just before it becomes
>>>> unstoppable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If so, shouldn't Rossi be telling us that? Do you think he told his
>>> anonymous customer who supposedly bought **13** "power plants" consisting
>>> of some 600+ individual modular units? Do you believe there is such a
>>> customer? Is someone really that dense? What would 13 such things
>>> possibly be used for?
>>>
>>
>>
>
