I prefer to keep my model private at this time due to IP associated with the effort involved in developing it. I am happy to answer questions regarding results of model behavior runs to help all of us understand some of the more elusive concepts.
Rossi, and everyone else associated with this field keep IP closely guarded. If this secrecy changes, I will do likewise. Don't you think that it would be unfair for some of us to be free with potentially valuable IP, while others hold on to it and patent just about every idea? I wish it were different. Dave -----Original Message----- From: James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, May 26, 2013 9:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Constant temperature Operation of ECAT? 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
