I should add that I don't believe that currently we have any hard evidence for
the existence of thermal runaway occurring spontaneously. The (in)famous photo
of the device in meltdown was taken under the condition of continuous supply of
substantial input power. For all we know, we are looking at a photo of a
resistor overheating.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Dave,
You therefore answer in the affirmative - i.e. it looks possible in principle
to operate with sporadic negative power input (cooling) and at zero input
power, once the reaction set point has been established.
This is exactly what is required to nail down the existence of the effect. No
shenanigans with input power are then possible, and there's only one conclusion
possible - that, at steady-state, energy is being generated when no energy is
being input. This is crucial in my view for universal acceptance of the
vailidity of the effect - whatever the details of that effect might be.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Andrew,
My model demonstrates that a periodic waveform is required in order to keep
the ECAT within stable bounds and at a good COP. If the drive is totally
eliminated then there are two states that can exist. One is for the device to
cool off and reach room temperature and the other is for it to continue rising
in temperature until it can no longer be controlled by the drive waveform. You
can use the final drive state to determine which direction the ECAT ultimately
heads. That is, you can give the ECAT a push toward one of those two
conditions. The positive feedback mechanism takes over after that final push
and carries the order to completion.
Of course, if someone applies super cooling tubes to extract the excess
heat then the thermal resistance will be reduced. Enough of this type of
cooling could reverse the process. If sufficient reduction in thermal
resistance is achieved, the positive feedback instability can be defeated. If
the loop gain becomes less than unity the device would begin to cool toward
room temperature. It is a complicated system with many subtle points to
consider.
There may exist some situations where negative feedback occurs, but this is
speculative. I am fairly confident that a limiting mechanism must exist where
the temperature can become no higher. As this temperature is approached the
positive feedback loop gain must become less than unity. When the gain is
reduced below unity stable operation begins and a real SSM occurs. I suspect
that any attempt to gain control by drive alone is hopeless at these
temperatures and the only way possible to cool the device would be to flush it
with coolant.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew <andrew...@att.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Dave,
Does this model allow a stable energy production regime to exist when,
after initiation via initial heating has begun, the device can be run at zero
input power, and regulation to prevent runaway is achieved by the application
of sporadic cooling via (say) cooling tubes?
For if the device can indeed be continuously operated at zero (or indeed
negative) input power, then one has unambiguously demonstrated the production
of "something from nothing", and there's no getting away from that.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Fran, my model takes into account the rate of heat transfer out of the
device by using a parameter that simulates a thermal positive feedback loop.
And, as you suggest this depends greatly upon the rate of heat generation with
temperature and the thermal resistance that it delivers that heat into.
Another way to think of this effect is to consider what would happen to a block
of active material which is surrounded by a perfect heat conductor. In this
special case, any additional heat that is generated is immediately absorbed by
the conductor and can not raise the temperature of the block. This would be a
stable condition and the COP would be low. Now, if you modify the surrounding
heat conductor by increasing its thermal resistance then any newly generated
heat from within the block would result in an increase in its internal
temperature in a positive feedback manner. The resistance can be increased
until it reaches a point such that a tiny incremental input of heat to the
block results in a temperature increase of the block that causes additional
heat generation slightly larger than the initial increment. Rossi appears to
operate above this resistance point when his device has the desired
performance.
That was a lot of words and I suspect is not clearly written. The meat
of the description is that there will be a temperature that depends upon the
heat sinking where the device becomes unstable and begins to proceed toward
melting. My model suggests that this is the temperature above which Rossi
should operate his device to achieve good COP. The model further indicates
that you can maintain control of the device while operating above this point as
long as you reverse the process before a second temperature trip point is
reached that leads to run away. It is important to realize that operation
within this region is unstable unless a drive waveform is applied with the
proper characteristics.
In the radio world this type of device would be referred to as a negative
resistance component. Rossi must be relying upon the energy generated in this
mode for his large gain. The hard part is to keep the ECAT from getting out of
control since he is operating on a sharp balance to obtain good COP.
I am not modeling any process that occurs beyond the two temperature
trips that I described since operation above the second one is destructive.
Operation below the first temperature point results in a COP that is too low to
be useful. I have included energy loss due to a 4th order radiation process in
some of my runs, but so far I find that control issues occur before this has
significant effect.
I believe as you do that operation with a heat exchange fluid will be
easier to control. This also allows Rossi to adjust the flow rate which could
be used to modify the thermal resistance factor and thus total loop dynamics.
For example, he could raise the temperature at which the core become unstable
thereby compensating for different core activities.
My model operates upon the average behavior of an ECAT type device. It
assumes that the design has been developed by good engineering processes. If
the design team allows the system to harbor inconsistent heat transfer such as
would occur with too many and too large in size hot spots, then there is no
control technique that will work effectively. I suspect that much effort will
center around making sure this issue is handled.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: francis <froarty...@comcast.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 25, 2013 7:16 am
Subject: re: [Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
Dave, I think you we are both in agreement with the initial post of Ed’s
thermal analysis,
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg80803.html but it does
not mention the difference between the destructive test in open air and the
unit in normal operation which is constantly bathed in a heat extracting
fluid.. are you modeling this in your SPICE calculation? The thermal circuit in
the destructive test only has air cooling to keep the runaway at bay and
represents a softer – more fragile target for the waveforms to temporarily
exceed while I think the reactor in heavy heat sinking mode would have much
higher tolerance for controlled PWM excursions into areas that would be
considered runaway if not for the steady drain.
Fran
[Vo]: ECAT Drive PWM Issues
David Roberson Fri, 24 May 2013 23:30:52 -0700
I was adjusting my spice model of the ECAT when I decided to determine how
important it is to keep the device operating within the normally unstable
region at all times. Here I refer to the unstable region as that operation
range where the ECAT would tend toward over heating unless under control. There
is no end to the questions which keep arising as to how heat can be applied in
the proper format to keep an unstable device operating under control when it is
capable of putting out more heat than required to drive it. And, the ECAT
tends to operate best when the COP is equal to 6 which clearly is within this
mode. One day this will be accepted. For now, I want to mention that it is
important to keep the ECAT operating near the ultimate thermal run away region.
If the device temperature is allowed to drop too far before the drive returns
then the COP degrades significantly. And, as is somewhat demonstrated by the
waveforms shown in the recent report, the length of time that the temperature
hesitates at its greatest level is determined by how by Coupon Companion"
id="_GPLITA_0"close to that ultimate run away temperature the device operates.
My test runs demonstrate that the ECAT needs to be operating at a maximum
temperature near to its ultimate thermal run away point and that the variation
in output temperature needs to be maintained low by timing of the PWM drive.
Both of these requirements should be met if the ECAT is to deliver the desired
COP of 6 and remain stable. My spice model offers good guidance even though it
can only approximate a real device. Dave
