I think you are missing something Arnaud. Rossi uses the phrase self sustaining to include operation where the input power is applied intermittently. I consider this to be a "drive it to the desired level and let it drift until it needs to be re driven again" mode. It is very difficult to control a positive feedback system at high COP (6) unless you handle it in the manner I mentioned since it has a tendency to continue increasing output power until it self destructs otherwise. I can not think of many applications where you do not need to be able to stop the output power at some desired point in time.
In the October test he mentions that the drive needs to be in a duty cycle form even though it is called self sustaining operation. The difficulty is in the form of a mismatch in definitions. If Rossi carefully drives his device until the internally generated heat is just below that required to cause the device to keep heating up he can discontinue the drive and it will begin to cool off. The closer to this critical heat generation level he gets, the longer the device lingers at the high temperature levels. My model demonstrates that the time constant reaches infinity when the device is internally generating heat at a level that exactly matches that lost through all of the loss mechanisms. Does this not seem obvious? Try not to be confused by the tricky way that Rossi displays his data. I can decode the scrambled information since I have a model that appears to demonstrate the behavior of his actual device to a reasonable degree. He is a master at hiding the important information within a lot of non pertinent details. Carefully follow my input and you can see what is actually happening. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Arnaud Kodeck <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 6:17 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 Dave, In selfsustaining mode, there is no input power to the cylinder. So I don't understand the 3 first sentences of your email. Self sustain mode is no input power and you say 2.359 kW. Duty cycle is 118/328 = 0.359. Time when the system was not in self sustaining mode is 328-118 = 210 hours. Something is wrong about the total energy consumed as claimed by Rossi. If total energy consumed is 278.4 kWh and 210 hours of non self sustained mode, the average power consumption is 1.32 kW, not 2.4 kW as said in the report. If we take the total time, things go worse ... Or am I missing something ? Arnaud From: David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 23:18 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 Maybe so ChemE! My quick analysis reveals that the true COP in the self sustaining mode is in line with his earlier statements. If you take the total input energy during the self sustaining mode (278.4 kWh) and divide by the hours in this mode (118 Hours) you get 2.359 kW. This matches his average input power listing of 2.4 kW. And it is likewise stated that the peak input is 5 kW. This matches my simulations fairly well where the duty cycle is at 2.359/5 = .4718. The output power is stated as 14.337 kW. If I use these numbers I calculate the COP in this mode as being 14.337/2.359 = 6.0775. Note also that the peak power output to the peak input is 14.337 / 5.0 = 2.8674 which is in line with his previous statements that this ratio is 3 to 1 in his design that also is in line with my earlier simulations. These numbers are consistent with what Rossi has been telling the world for a long time and my simulations support the numbers when temperature control is applied to my simulated device. Perhaps this time we have the proof we seek if the numbers hold up to scrutiny. Dave -----Original Message----- From: ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the blinding array of photons released:) On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? Dave
