We have discussed several possible methods that Rossi might use to control his device. So far he has only demonstrated adding heat but I suspect that sufficient cooling would cause a temperature path reversal as well if of adequate capacity. Initially heat is required to get the process primed but a strong cooling shock should reverse the process.
I have suspected that control can be obtained by either adding and then rapidly subtracting heat from the system or by cooling massively followed by rapid reduction to the cooling at the proper timing. I have constructed a model of the first technique that seems to work well but have not worked on the other method since Rossi does not appear to incorporate the hardware required for that process. Perhaps future designs will include that possibility which appears to offer certain advantages. Very careful placement of the operating point at the exact balance where internal power generated exactly matches the power being delivered to the load sinks would require a minimum amount of control energy as you point out. In this case, if he can supply a fine adjustment of heating or cooling then perhaps the balance can be maintained. I am not confident that fine control about this operating point would be easy to realize under real life conditions. Dave -----Original Message----- From: jwinter <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Oct 5, 2013 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi / Defkalion Calorimetry Nonsense On 6/10/2013 12:18 AM, Craig wrote: The input power is not simply heat. The primary component is some type of electrical oscillator; and I don't think we've been told what that is. Craig Maybe it takes something to ignite it, but the fact that the COP is not fixed at 6 but can be varied to infinity (at thermal run-away) indicates that the oscillator thing is not required for continuing operation once the reaction gets going. On 6/10/2013 1:00 AM, David Roberson wrote: You need to understand the complexity of Rossi's ECAT in order to see how your last paragraph will not work. His ECAT is either heading toward thermal run away ... If it is capable of true thermal run-away, then it can simply be held on that knife edge - neither being allowed to run-away, or cool down, with a control system. This should be just as easy as keeping an inverted pendulum vertical against its continual tendency to fall one way or the other - an exercise done by virtually every student of control engineering. (In fact there is a continual small oscillation about the balance point, the level of which depends on the noise floor of the primary sensor and the closed loop bandwidth. But to all intents and purposes it simply sits stably in a continual state of being about to fall over.) Also, it is not such a simple task to put together a system that is self running. As I understand it, the system already self-runs. The problem is that it is dominated by positive feedback that makes it either want to run-away if it gets too hot or cool down if it gets too cold. Simply wrapping a negative feedback control system around it to counteract the positive and keep it at the right temperature solves this problem. You might ask yourself why the reactors in Japan had such a hard time when the input power was interrupted by the Tsunami. ... I am not suggesting the power for the control system and cooling fan be derived from the heat output! They should be powered from the mains in the normal manner. I can't imagine any sceptic being fool enough to suggest that the reactor was being kept red-hot by the blast of cold air blowing over it! Many of us have issues with his demonstrations, but the evidence that he has something functioning is strong. I felt the evidence was strong also, but as years go by and a self-runner (which should be as easy as adding an off-the-shelf temperature controller) is never demonstrated - one really begins to wonder why not!
