I have run many simulations of an ECAT type device where temperature is the controlling parameter and find that the only way to get a decent COP (>2) is to use positive feedback. In this mode the device is thermally running away to generate effective gain and must be reversed just before total control is lost on each cycle. If a truly linear heat output versus material temperature is available one can have constant COP gain, but this is not true for any other function.
An exception to this simulation rule might occur if strong active cooling of some type is used which overpowers the internal heat source and lowers the material temperature sufficiently to bring it back to planet earth. An example would be to apply a large pulse of low temperature coolant that extracts the additional heat energy quickly. I do not see anything of this nature within Rossi's design. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 9:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity > From: "David Roberson" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:43:00 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity > I saw that information on Rossi's journal. I am inclined to believe > that he does not have anything resembling linear control otherwise he > could raise the COP above 6 with little concern. Does anyone in vortex > actually believe that the LENR activity goes up linearly with drive > power? It would be great if true, but I would bet against it. I don't think anyone but Rossi BELIEVES it ... but he sure sticks with it, all the way up to 1200C. (Or has any idea how a resistive heating control could still work at 1200C. Actually, he uses a lower number -- 1080C?). If he was scamming and had nothing to show, he'd surely have raised his COP to "See" Defkalion. (Poker terms.) And the "un-public test" rumors are that Defkalion couldn't deliver stable results.
