Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
In a LENR system that is separated into two parts: a CAT and a MOUSE, the MOUSE pumps the polaritons that feeds the CAT. The COP of the system is a function of how efficiently the MOUSE can generate polaritons from the input power that drives the MOUSE. Optimizing MOUSE polariton production efficiency is a way to improve the COP of the system. For example, if the MOUSE uses a high efficiency spark which consumes little power to produce polaritons, then the COP of the system could exceed 6. Such optimization might be done by using a fast repeating very short duration spark that features a very low duty cycle. But the CAT can also pump its own polaritons. This self-generated CAT polariton generation process increases as the CATs temperature increases and oftentimes results in meltdown. Depressing the propensity for the Cat to pump its own polaritons could also make the system less reactive to burn up. This might be done by employing a thermostatically controlled very high efficiency cooling system that rapidly removes heat from the CAT. I recommend a liquid metal based heat pipe cooling system. Or if cooling is done passively, an integrated SiC heat exchanger distributed throughout the volume of the CAT might be functional. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I modeled the behavior of core heat generation as a smooth function of temperature. Various functions and power series relationships have been modeled, but noisy generation was not attempted. If too much variation in heat power output is encountered then the process would become more difficult to stabilize. In that case my main concern would be that a burst in heat power output would kick the device over the threshold that leads to thermal run away. Rossi has never given a clue as to whether or not this type of issue effects operation of his devices. The recent published tests that displayed the surface temperature of the Hotcat versus time appeared to be very consistent from cycle to cycle. That suggests that variation is not too severe. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. When you were modeling the thermodynamics of the reaction, did you use a stochastic model for the reaction itself? If so, did you look at the effect of different variances in the temperature excursions? Eric
[Vo]:Thermal inertia
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) attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
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 jone...@pacbell.net 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)
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
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
I agree that most people run into a mental roadblock when they try to understand how thermal input that is of much smaller magnitude than that which is generated by the ECAT is capable of controlling the reaction. It seems obvious that a small portion of the output could simply find its way back to replace that initial input and keep the device moving toward thermal run away. I admit that I had the same concerns when I first began modeling the process a couple of years ago. My expectations were that I would witness thermal run away as expected, but Rossi spoon fed us with tiny hints suggesting that a COP of 6 was the best he could achieve and I asked myself why this limit and not a lower one. So, I generated a model to achieve a better understanding of the process. Rossi also spoke of a duty cycled power input waveform and even described it in details. We have always suspected that he tends to feed misinformation to confuse competitors so I took this information with a great deal of skepticism. So, I constructed a simple toy spice model and let it run while I varied the major parameters. To my initial amazement, I was able to achieve control of the positive feedback process while calculating a COP that was in the vicinity of 6! The COP can be modified over quite a range of values while stable operation was possible, but the greater the total COP, the closer to thermal destruction he has to operate. To have his device run with the desired COP of 6 required a high degree of accuracy in maintaining the core temperature peak value and a small error would result in loss of control with simple thermal feedback from a heat source. An active controller using strong cooling would be much more stable when using a good algorithm. The key process parameter I discovered when playing with my models is that positive feedback can allow the core temperature to move in both directions. That is, the temperature can be increasing ever faster or can be decreasing ever faster as the feedback gains ground. This behavior suggests that operation at this fine balance point might be possible and it only requires a tiny amount of drive heat energy if tightly controlled. The balance point occurs when the thermal energy being generated by the core at its operating temperature is exactly equal to the energy being extracted by the external system. The thermal mass of the core and other components smooth out and delay the temperature movement and allow the controller sufficient time to act. Furthermore, as long as the internally generated heat energy of the core is slightly less than the demand from the load, the core will begin to cool off when the drive heat power is turned off. I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 10:32 am Subject: [Vo]:Thermal inertia 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
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
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 jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
I think heat is important and is supplemented with an over riding magnetic field at higher temperatures. In other words there are 2 parameters that affect the reaction rate--heat with its slow reaction time and magnetic field which acts with a smaller time constant. The heat is supplied in the form of phonons and not infrared radiation and therefore depends upon heat conduction with whatever rate the composite material of Rossi's reactor has considering both the metal shell and the internal composite material which Rossi says is Ni and H. I think the heat is required to get the spectrum of lattice vibrations into a range where resonance coupling with the Ni-H reaction can be achieved. The size of the Ni particles would be important in this regard. I consider the magnetic field is what is the primary controller of the energy producing reaction between the Ni and H, however. The recent report by Mizuno may have been nano Ni particles dispersed within a ZrO2 matrix which would have some other thermal properties than Rossi's reactor. Mizuno's reaction seemed to produce hydrogen from D and in this regard may be a different reaction than Rossi's effect. Bob - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia 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 jone...@pacbell.net 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
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. When you were modeling the thermodynamics of the reaction, did you use a stochastic model for the reaction itself? If so, did you look at the effect of different variances in the temperature excursions? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia
I modeled the behavior of core heat generation as a smooth function of temperature. Various functions and power series relationships have been modeled, but noisy generation was not attempted. If too much variation in heat power output is encountered then the process would become more difficult to stabilize. In that case my main concern would be that a burst in heat power output would kick the device over the threshold that leads to thermal run away. Rossi has never given a clue as to whether or not this type of issue effects operation of his devices. The recent published tests that displayed the surface temperature of the Hotcat versus time appeared to be very consistent from cycle to cycle. That suggests that variation is not too severe. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thermal inertia On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:43 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I hope this short description of how I model the ECAT operation helps to clarify the process. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask. When you were modeling the thermodynamics of the reaction, did you use a stochastic model for the reaction itself? If so, did you look at the effect of different variances in the temperature excursions? Eric
