David, I understand the IP problem, but I do not see how a model as
you describe can be patented. The problem of control that the nuclear
process presents is obvious and trivial. It is the same problem of
control present in any positive feed back system. A unique feature
would only be present in the model if the LENR process were fully
understood and this understanding were included in an unique way. You
apparently have not done this, if for no other reason than you do not
understand how LENR works. I can easily create a similar model using
my theory, but this would be premature. Such a model is only useful
when it is applied to an actual design. The design would justify the
patent, not the model that lead to the design. To assume otherwise
would be like attempting to patent a law of thermodynamics because it
was used to find a more efficient way to manufacture a chemical
compound.
Ed Storms
On May 26, 2013, at 10:00 PM, David Roberson wrote:
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
