OK, I played a bit more with the model to see if this sort of behavior was demonstrated. Actually it was relatively easy to incorporate a mechanism that did the trick.
I reviewed the picture of the Rossi test cylinder and realized that the surface of the device was radiating the heat that was being generated within. This implied a forth order energy release mechanism due to the blackbody radiation equation. I added a heat energy sink that absorbed the output in proportion to the forth power of the absolute temperature and adjusted the second order term that I had established earlier in the model to compensate for interaction and things got interesting. First of all, there remains performance as before where a well defined self sustaining temperature is reached. If the drive is of my original description, where the temperature is driven to within 90 % of the critical run away value, then it can be totally controlled by duty cycle of the drive mechanism. This makes perfect sense since operation is below the critical region. If the input is allowed to remain for long enough in the drive mode, the device temperature will reach the self sustaining trigger point. From this point onward, the output heat energy increases exponentially due to the positive feedback that we are so familiar with until an output level is reached that remains stationary. The stationary level is established at the temperature where the forth order radiation energy sink exactly matches the second order (in this model) energy release source. Of course the drive signal is taken away at some point in the procedure just to demonstrate that the device operates in a self sustaining mode. This effect is consistent with the real world ECAT as described by Rossi. So, to design a device such as the ECAT, one needs to have a curve that defines the internally generated heat energy as a function of the device temperature. He then must establish an operating temperature such as 1000 C that is determined by the requirements for the unit. At this time, the blackbody radiation rules will lead to a calculatible energy density being removed from the surface. Next, you adjust the surface area that is to be set at 1000 C by working on the dimensions of the device until a match is achieved. I believe that this process could be used to establish the amount of active material that contributes to the desired energy release. One could adjust the inside hole dimensions as a method of reducing the nickel mixture until exactly the correct amount of material is reached. A secondary use for the hole is to allow introduction of gas heating to initialize the reaction. Please recall that my model is very speculative and an interesting exercise. I do not imply that it is accurate in any way, but the correlation to the real world behavior of ECAT devices might have significance. Enjoy, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Aug 23, 2012 9:07 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations Nice model Dave. Now, try it if the output temperature remains steady at 1200C as Rossi claims. This implies very little positive feedback. What COP would he achieve? Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 7:54 AM Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Model with Interesting Correlations I have been fiddling with one of my models of the ECAT and just wanted to let the group have a peek. Rossi has been active on his journal and suggested that his device has certain characteristics which my model tends to support. It should be noted that any model of Rossi's device is going to be lacking at this point in time since very little reliable information is available. My objective in this case is to reveal that a relatively simple model does in fact give results that are reasonably consistent with what he claims. Please realize that these results are at best speculative and should be considered educational but not accurate. With this disclaimer, I will proceed with the disclosure. The model consists of a power drive source that supplies heat to a device that internally generates excess heat that is proportional to the second order of the absolute temperature within. The net heat is thus the sum of the drive power plus the contribution of the internally generated heating process. Since the internally generated heat energy is defined as E = k * T * T, very little shows up until you approach the operating region. I have experimented with various heat output functions, such as exponential, linear or third order in the past. Each of these has an interesting behavior and I plan to investigate further. The model I am discussing in this report behaves a great deal like what Rossi mentions in his journal. For one thing, there exists a well defined temperature where the device goes into a positive feedback self sustaining mode. Unfortunately, once that happens, it is difficult to control unless a form of active cooling is incorporated into the design which quickly drains heat from the device. In this model, I am assuming that there is no such process available. So, to keep things sane, I allow the output power to reach a peak power that is 90% of the self sustaining level. When the temperature of that state is reached, the input power is reduced to zero. At power levels that are less than the self sustaining point the device immediately begins to cool and will eventually cease to generate excess heat. An interesting note is that the closer one drives the unit to self sustaining, the longer is the initial time constant before the heat rapidly declines. This characteristic allows Rossi to push the device harder if necessary to achieve a higher COP. Now, my model allows me to reapply input power after the internal heating has declined to the point that I desire. In the real world this function could be achieved by using a temperature sensor driving a control network. In my current example I find that a drive duty cycle of 41 % seems to fit Rossi's description relatively well. The average power output of the system divided by the average power input required to obtain this result is 6.028. This figure is very much in line with his standard 6.0. The ratio of the peak system power output to the peak power input is approximately 2.7. One of Rossi's answers to a blog question states that he drives the unit with a 3 to 1 ratio by my interpretation. In the same context, he states that his duty cycle is 50% which is a bit higher than my model results. In my opinion this simple model seems to add support to the description given by Rossi and that is interesting. I would expect the behavior of the real ECAT to be more complex by far than the simple model that I used, but there seems to be correlations. So, I suggest that you guys file this report away in the reaches of your minds, with the understanding that there might actually be substance to what Rossi is telling us. Dave
