Yes, that is the idea.
Ed Storms
On May 25, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
I feel bad that I missed that one, Ed. Please excuse me. So Rossi
can solve all his problems by adding some spark plugs to his design
as has DGT?
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Axil, you obviously did not read or do not understand what I said.
Please read the paragraph in bold again.
Ed Storms
On May 25, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
In the DGT documentation, they state that the DGT reaction can
produce a COP of 22 to 1. This can be done because they use
electronic stimulation of the reaction instead a the thermal
stimulation.
How can this be possible under your current theoretical
assumptions? Because this high COP does not fit in to your current
thinking, then it must be untrue, correct?
If you concede that electronic stimulation is a possibility, how
can this factoid be fitted into your theories?
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I like your approach, Dave. To fit reality, you need to take into
account two major variables. These are the diffusion rate and the
solubility of H in the Ni. Both determine the rate at which H can
get to the NAE where it enters into a nuclear reaction. The
diffusion rate increases with temperature while the concentration
of H decreases. At some high temperature these two competing
effects will produce a stable condition. Above this stable
temperature, increased temperature will reduce the power output
while below the stable temperature, increased temperature will
increase the power. This stable condition apparently occurs at a
very high temperature when Ni is used, but at a much lower
temperature when Pd is the metal. This fact makes Ni more useful as
a source of energy than Pd. The best design would be based on
achieving this stable temperature without a need for control. Rossi
has apparently not mastered this ability.
The concentration of H in the Ni can be increased by increasing the
H activity in the gas. This can be done by either increasing
pressure or by bombarding the Ni with energetic H+ ions. This
additional variable should be added to your model because this
method can greatly increase the power and allow for control without
using temperature as the controlling variable.
Ed Storms
On May 25, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Andrew wrote:
Dave,
It seems that your model of heat conductivity leads to a system
equation that's a linear first order differential equation, if I'm
not mistaken. That's a tractable system to deal with from a
simulation and control point of view, and as such lends itself to
numerical optimisation techniques.
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