I constructed a new computer model of the ECAT that allows me to modify the variables quickly and made some interesting observations. If the internal temperature of the device reaches the thermal run away level, then it is on its way toward self destruction as Rossi has mentioned on several occasions. It is speculated that he could still reverse the action if some form of active cooling is incorporated within his design to pull it back from the brink. My latest model suggests that the amount of deviation away from the thermal run away temperature determines how much cooling is required to salvage the system.
The other side of the equation is also valid. If we assume that the drive is removed at the optimum time, which is when the internal temperature is close to but slightly below the run away point, then the device will immediately begin to cool off and head toward room temperature. This behavior is a typical positive feedback loop where the change in direction reinforces itself and the action gains momentum with time. The longer you wait before you correct the direction, the harder the task becomes. With this in mind, I toyed with the new model to see if it might be possible to use this behavior to our advantage. The model suggests that this is the case and that the net COP of the device can be quite large if it is possible to keep the control input power pulses to low values. For this to operate it is necessary for Rossi to run the ECAT at very near the thermal run away trip point. The closer, the better and this reminds me of tickling a dragon. You better be careful or it might get angry and you know the consequences. I initiated the output power by supplying a large power pulse which is required to push the operation into the negative resistance region so that the positive feedback takes over and the modeled temperature begins to climb toward the thermal run away level. The temperature climb takes place while the large drive level is active so that control is available. Once close operation to the trip point is achieved, the power input is rapidly removed. This removal of input power is the control method which causes the positive feedback system to reverse direction and begin its path toward cooling to room temperature. Then, my new test control concept is put into action. I monitor the internal feedback power which falls rapidly as the device cools even though the temperature and output power falls quite a bit less due to the polynomial power effect. The reversal can be achieved by supplying power greater than the difference between the self sustaining power and the internally generated power. The actual power required approaches zero if the temperature can be kept at a tiny amount below the thermal runaway temperature. If active cooling is available, then both sides of the trip point could be used. The model demonstrates a very large COP, but of course changes in the environment such as the temperature of the coolant and its flow rate as well as many other factors must be considered to determine a safe operation temperature band. And, since the ECAT is not available to test it is not possible to establish real time constants for accurate modeling. With these constraints I have constructed a very general model that can be used to generate concepts and to see how some of the variables interact. I have no way to obtain delay information at this time and of course, that will complicate the performance greatly if excessive. I want to mention that the recent statements that Rossi has made on his blog strongly suggest that the ECAT operates in a manner that is consistent with my model. It is interesting that I can immediately place his numbers into my model in a location that makes sense. The latest discussion of the mouse having a reverse relationship to the main cat does seem out of line unless he is using words to obscure the meaning. Dave
