I think it is much more likely that Rossi's reaction is positive feedback when operating, is chaotic in nature (discontinuous), and requires a temperature threshold for the reaction to work.
First, positive feedback - when the temperature is higher the reaction rate is higher, causing the temperature to go higher. The gain is infinite. Second, chaotic: the reaction may go to completion in an NAE and then stop altogether. This causes reduced heat and the temperature drops. At an uncertain random time another NAE or set of NAE may begin operation producing heat. Third, temperature threshold: Below a certain temperature threshold, the reaction rate falls rapidly to none. Due to the chaotic nature of the rate, the temperature can briefly fall below this threshold and if energy is not input from the control, then the reaction stops altogether. Rossi maintains his reactor at the threshold of thermal runaway. At this threshold, the reaction is stopping at random, gets a heat input from his control to cross the temperature threshold, and the reaction starts at other NAE. If it ever gets too hot (too little heat was taken out), the reaction runs away and melts down. I think if Rossi had a large thermal mass kept slightly above the threshold, he would be able to control the system solely by throttling the heat being withdrawn from the large thermal mass. Doing this he would be able to reach large COPs since the throttling control of the heat exchanger requires much less power than directly heating his eCat (which for the HotCat has a fairly constant thermal heat withdrawal rate near the operating temperature). In effect, the large heat sink would average over the chaotic drops and rises in temperature. Bob On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics > > > https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a > rticle/view/69/145 > There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the > subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal > input. > > In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the > reaction (P-out > P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? > Why > not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such > as if it was at COP=6 ? > > There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves > keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) > to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal > inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general > may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. > > A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen > in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen > side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau > for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more > like > a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that > the > second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there > is > no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the > downslope can be abrupt . > > Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve > at > an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer > characteristics may not be adequate to maintain a positive feedback > plateau, > at least not without an outside source of heat. > > This may not be a clear verbalization of the thermodynamics, and perhaps > someone can word it more clearly - but it explains the need for the > "goldilocks" or 3-bear mode of reaction control for E-Cat. (not too hot and > not too cold) > > >
