I agree he has been less than careful in the delivery of his data! I have not seen any evidence that he is storing output power in any type of device to use as an input heating source. One could suggest that the heat is being stored within the active mechanism itself at a level that keeps its temperature sufficiently high to regenerate the lost heat due to radiation, etc. This would certainly be considered a self sustaining mode to my way of thinking.
A device of the above description could be forced to cool downward by extracting heat from its surface at a rate that overcomes the internal generation level. In the case at hand, a blast of cool air might be all that is required to do the task. The other option is to allow input power drive that comes at a duty cycle as I have simulated. In this mode, the internal temperature is prevented from reaching the critical level where self generated heat exactly balances and then exceeds the demand from the loading or extraction of energy. You have control of the device since you can stop your input on demand which, if adjusted properly, leads to a gradual cooling of the core until it needs to be replenished. I believe that Rossi considers this to be his self sustaining mode from his journal entries and descriptions concurrent with his last year demonstrations. If we consider the HOT CAT as it would be operating within a real life environment, heat will be absorbed by the system for output to generate electricity or for whatever is required. If the flow rate of the transfer fluid is adequate then the exchange medium could take away the excess heat keeping the device below the actual self sustaining level of an unloaded unit. A dynamic load of this nature would constitute the active cooling that I favor. I feel confident that operation of this type would impact the stability of the positive feedback device in a way that requires input power control particularly if a reasonable COP is desired. As usual, my speculation is based upon a simulation model and may not be accurate. The model can be improved significantly if the relevant data is obtained from Rossi and his testers. Eric, you mention that LENR devices tend to shut down by themselves in the HAD mode. Rossi has insisted that his units only reach this state if they run uncontrolled and self destruct by melting. I would consider this type of operation a defect that needs to be corrected. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 1:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error? On Oct 13, 2012, at 9:00, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: I can only guess that he allowed this operation to continue until stopped with some form of heat extraction to defeat the process and allow the unit to cool down. Assuming what Andrea Rossi is saying is basically true, there may or may not be a need for active cooling. LENR is known to just shut off, on its own, for unknown reasons, during heat after death. Heat after death is when LENR continues after the input drive has been turned off; e.g. current or gas pressure. There is a legitimate sense in my opinion in which a device can continue in "self-sustaining mode," where there continues to be an input drive of some kind, and nonetheless we are not in heat after death; namely, when the entire unit is off the grid and part of the output power is being redirected into a battery that is used to feed the input drive. In this scenario there need not be an active quenching of some kind to quench the reaction -- simply disconnect the battery, at which point the system will enter heat after death and eventually peter out. My current assumption is that Andrea Rossi's numbers are basically correct, once amended, if skewed to lead to a generous interpretation, and he's just been less than careful on the delivery. Eric
