A great deal depends upon exactly how the reaction behaves when the internal temperature of the core is changed. Rossi can very rapidly cut off the power to the heating element so slow response is not important in that operation. After that point in time we are left with the effects of internally generated power which is not sufficient to keep the temperature at its level just prior to the cut off. There has been no evidence to support the notion that the internal heating increases once the electrical heater is shut down, so it makes sense to assume that the core temperature will begin to go down instead of up. The positive feedback in effect will next force the core temperature downward at an ever faster rate as the device becomes further away from the critical self sustaining region.
Rossi most likely allows the internal heating to approach the critical region since that is what allows him to achieve a good COP. The thermal time constant becomes infinite at the critical self sustaining level in which case he could theoretically wait a very long time to generate the refresh heating. My simulation suggests that keeping the temperature maximum to about 90% of the critical level results in his specified COP. Of course Rossi has to supply refresh pulses of heating when the core temperature reaches the proper lower limit. This action allows the positive feedback to force the temperature upward for another major heating event. This is an early version of Rossi's design and he may face problems that are difficult to handle, but it is not possible to compare this device to a steam engine unless we are comparing apples to oranges. There is no issue about other factors needing to be present to get heat after death in Rossi's device. I am confident that LENR heat is being generated for most, if not all, of the time that the core is at an elevated temperature. A non LENR active device would merely release stored heat when the drive power is eliminated. In this case, both LENR as well as stored heat will exit the core during the cool down phase. The total heat released could be many times that of an inactive core. I hope to address the temperature rise alluded to in a following post. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: One can establish control of a positive feedback ECAT system by taking away enough of the internal device heat so it no longer possess the temperature required to regenerate the self sustaining energy. Yes, I see that. But it seems like a dicey way to control the reaction. I do not think it would work quickly enough with an actual large-scale energy source for something like a locomotive engine. There must be other factors at work that inhibit or enhance the reaction. If that were not the case, Rossi's cell running in heat after death would not have self-heated, nor would Mizuno's and the others that were cooled at a constant rate. In the early days of steam engines and later Diesel engines there were various control mechanisms applied that did not work well enough. They were too slow (as I suspect this one is), or too crude (such as regulating the fuel supply without fine control), or because other unknown control mechanism were at work. This resulted in run-away engines and boiler explosions. If Rossi is trying to control the thing using thermal methods alone, my hunch is that will not work, for reasons similar to the problems with early heat engines. - Jed
