The Spice file would suffice. What do I plan to do with the information? I don't know. Isn't it standard practice to share one's model when speaking of it in a collegial manner? Do you have a proprietary interest in it?
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Not without a lot of serious thinking. The model is in the form of a > spice file with non linear elements. Perhaps this can be done, but I have > not attempted it so far. > > Could you explain what you plan to do with that information if it can be > obtained? > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 8:07 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? > > Could you post the differential equations of the control system? > > > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:44 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> My model demonstrates that constant temperature operation of the ECAT is >> not going to work under normal conditions. The relatively high value of >> COP when temperature control is used depends upon operation in a positive >> feedback region. This can be thought of as related to the question that >> always arises about why the device does not supply its own drive and >> therefore run continuously in SSM. >> >> Once the loop gain becomes greater than 1, the device will tend to move >> in the direction that it is currently heading. This allows it to heat up >> to a relatively larger temperature than that due to the drive alone. When >> rising in temperature, the device begins to put out additional heat, more >> with time. The trick is to turn the process around at a good point before >> it goes too far. The best turn around temperature is well defined and >> shows up as a tendency for the device to continue putting out power at a >> constant rate with time. Unfortunately, this exact point would be >> impossible to achieve while maintaining control. It is a balance between >> how long you want the temperature to remain nearly constant and the risk of >> loosing control. >> >> Rossi chose a relatively safe turn around temperature for the last test >> which caused the COP to drop below his desired value of 6. I suspect he >> chose this because a COP of 3 well demonstrates that the process is real >> and also has enough margin to keep the device safe from melt down. I think >> I would have done the same under the same constraints. >> >> Dave >> >> >> > >
