Those are pretty tough questions for a device that is generating fission, fusion, chemical and possibly some forms of collapsed matter, all with different reaction kinetics, time constants and instabilities...I would think it would be very hard to wrestle that pig to the ground (I grew up on a farm)...
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Great stuff Dave. > > > On the face of it, this Rossi reaction control mechanism seems primitive > and problematic. Do you have additional details? > > When the reaction is operating at 1200C, what level of temperature spike > is required to reverse a dropping reaction temperature profile? Does the > maximum level of external temperature spike ever get above 1450C at any > point? How long does the reaction take to respond to the temperature > spike? What causes the reaction temperature to fall? How long does the > reaction take to regain stability? How much power does the external > temperature impulse consume in a 10 KW system? How much heat loss from pore > insolation can the reactor tolerate? > > > Cheers: Axil > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> I performed additional analysis and have a couple of items to add to the >> simulation results. The first one is that it is obvious that the Rossi >> controlled devices operate within the thermal run away region to achieve a >> COP of 6. In these cases, the positive feedback is responsible for the >> gain and also set the time constants required to keep the units stable with >> drive. Other implicit components that effect the time constant are the >> thermal capacitance of the core and thermal resistance through which the >> heat energy flows. >> >> One consequence of operation within the unstable region is that a strong >> shock is required to force the rising temperature function of the device to >> reverse direction. Once reversed, the temperature will head toward zero >> and stable operation unless another external positive heating shock occurs >> at an important time. This behavior might well explain why Rossi continues >> to insist that he can not use the heat output of an ECAT to drive >> additional ones. The slow response time of the ECAT driver would not >> constitute a thermal shock that could control the operation of its >> brothers. An electric or gas heater can respond rapidly enough to achieve >> the desired results. >> >> Perhaps I sound like a Rossi fan by continuing to support his claims >> while many of the other vorts seem to question them. I guess my confidence >> in many of his statements is that they tend to be confirmable by my model >> performance. If he were totally full of "***" then why insist upon a COP >> that is reasonable, but low, when claiming a higher value would be >> advantageous? How would extending this claim make him more of a dud? >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 4:50 pm >> Subject: [Vo]:ECAT Simulations With Third Order Temperature Dependency >> >> Earlier I posted information obtained by simulating the ECAT device. >> The last version assumed that the ECAT internal LENR energy generation >> mechanism depended upon the core temperature as a second order function. >> The latest trial runs were obtained by using a model that allowed this >> temperature dependency to be of the third power. I was curious as to how >> much more critical the system would behave at this higher power and gave it >> a test run. >> >> I was able to obtain a COP of almost 18 if I pushed the operation of the >> core to the brink of critical run away temperature. This would not be >> acceptable unless an active cooling method was also available that could >> extract heat rapidly from the core if its temperature became too great. >> Rossi may have something of this nature in his latest design, but it is not >> evident. The power drive duty cycle was required to be approxiamtely 10% >> during this test run. >> >> If I operated the device within a conservative mode where I kept the >> temperature at 90% of the run away value I only obtained a COP of 3.61. I >> noted that the duty cycle of the drive was 50% which is as Rossi has >> stated within his journal. >> >> With these two independent runs available for reference it is clear that >> I could obtain the expected COP of 6 if I carefully chose the peak >> temperature excursion of the device. In the earlier experiment with the >> temperature dependency of second order the matching seemed to be easier and >> I achieved a good level with the first attempt. The implication of >> my modeling is that it is likely that Rossi or anyone who has a device that >> follows this general rule would be capable of making the COP of 6.0 if >> the design contains a reasonable geometry and has the internal thermal >> resistances properly adjusted. >> >> If anyone is aware of the power output-temperature functional >> relationship of Rossi's device please direct me to that data so that I can >> adjust the model to match the real world more closely. At this point it >> appears that Rossi is playing conservative and safe with his claimed COP of >> 6. He may eventually raise this level to be more competitive with others >> and there is room for adjustment especially if a good technique is used to >> actively cool the core. >> >> The usual disclaimer applies to this document. The model is for >> educational purposes only and may not reflect upon real device operational >> characteristics. >> >> Dave >> >> P.S. Contact me directly if you want further details about the model or >> its behavior. >> >> > >
