Yes, we have attempted to get Rossi to try active cooling of some type for it seems like ever! I have a suspicion that some time in the future it will appear and he will be seeing a COP that is significantly higher than he now entertains. Of course, it is far easier to supply just one mode and heating is the easiest and must be present to reach operating temperature in the first stages.
Perhaps Rossi has experimented with other means and finds that the coupling available between his core and heater is better controlled and acts faster than using the cooling processes. It is difficult to know what techniques he may have tried since he keeps that type of information close and for good reasons. My main hope is that Rossi delivers a working system that is practical in the least amount of time possible. I am perfectly happy to accept the COP of 6 at this time while expecting further improvements in the next generations. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 11:36 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Thermal inertia Bob, we seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. However, the thermal mass suggestion was made to Rossi in 2011 – over and over again - down to a recommendation for a low-volatility heat transfer fluid and storage unit, using one of the new replacements for PCBs like "diphenyl ether" - the new "Therminol" or an equivalent, which are the current choices for solar trough units. Of course, Rossi may not have tried this suggestion for unknown reasons – but since it is obvious, not expensive, and suggested by almost everyone to him (including Ampenergo) - yet it never showed up in a demo – the lack of the obvious solution may indicate that thermal mass recycling (alone) is not sufficient to maintain the goldilocks mode. From: Bob Higgins 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 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)
