I am beginning to suspect that Rossi may have figured out what his reaction is really doing. The core principle of the nanoplasmonic reaction involves the process of how the micro and nano particles come together into aggregations to form the nuclear active sites. These sites are the spaces between the aggregations of particles that form naturally in a dusty plasma.
The process of nanoparticle control including aggregation control driven by electrostatic attraction and repulsion is a well-known and widely used mechanism in nano-engineering. The first control mechanism developed to control particle aggregation is electrostatic control. See this abstract for details: http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-5148/index.html Using electrostatic based control, it may be possible in the E-Cat to control the nature of nanoparticle behavior by using electronic control. By producing a negative or positive electrostatic potential in the hydrogen envelop, both a positive and negative reaction feedback process can be initiated using electrostatic control based on plasma temperature sensing as an input parameter. If this is the control mechanism that Rossi has developed, it would be a very important advance is Ni/H technology and reaction understanding. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Rossi made a statement on his Journal recently that seemed puzzling at the > time. He mentioned that he was turning on the drive power for 1/4 of the > time and allowing the device to drift in the self sustaining mode for the > other 3/4. He further told us that he was working of having the ECAT > return *all* of the drive power even during the active drive time. > > At the time, I did not give this statement much thought, but today I was > reviewing the operation of my latest computer model and found his statement > revealing. If you assume that he is driving the core with input at a rapid > periodic rate so that the output power variation is well filtered by the > time constants of the system then this goal would only yield a COP of 4. > We know that he plans to guarantee a COP of at least 6 so I believe that we > can dismiss a very short period PWM drive function. The model therefore > points us in the direction of a slower process. Either technique can be > used to achieve a stable(with great care) ECAT control system, but the > slower pulse rate at this duty cycle can be induced to reach a higher COP. > > The reason a lower period drive achieves higher gain is because of the > shape of the internally generated power waveform. Most of my original > model work included this type of plan since it is easier to generate power > input efficiently with rail to rail digital signals. I assumed that Rossi > was going for the easiest and quickest method for his design since there is > less risk involved. > > The internal core power generation mechanism exhibits an interesting > behavior when the thermal runaway temperature threshold is approached. > There is a time constant associated with the thermal balances acting in > conjunction with the net thermal mass which approaches infinity at that > exact point. Of course, Rossi can not afford to actually reach that level > without active cooling since his device would melt with a tiny error in > temperature. But apparently he is willing to come close to that level to > reach his COP goal. > > As I mentioned above, the thermal time constant approaches infinity as a > limit when the internal core temperature approaches thermal runaway. This > results in the core holding onto the elevated temperature and associated > power generation level for a time that extends in duration. This is a non > linear process which effectively generates much more power than a linear > time constant system. Most of the systems that we deal with have linear > time constants and therefore that is what we tend to expect. The ECAT > depends upon the other effect for its elevated COP. > > This conclusion is based upon my computer models and of course might be in > error due to the lack of data from Rossi. I believe that the trends can be > reasonably derived from the model behavior and the statements that Rossi > leaks to us on rare occasions is well supported by the model. Unless he > has a computer model much like mine, we can be assured that the ECAT is > real since I can not imagine how he would guess at this type of mechanism > without some form of evidence in support of his leaks. > > Dave >
