I suspect that ECAT active cooling would be possible with thermal control. This would behave in a reverse manner to active heating which is how he currently controls the ECAT. To make it work he would have to figure out a method of modulating the amount of heat that he extracts from the core at a relatively rapid rate and under controlled conditions. Earlier I suggested some form of spray of coolant onto the core which would vaporize quickly taking away a lot of heat during that phase. Once the lower turn around temperature is reached, the spray would cease and if lucky, the core would turn around its direction of temperature movement.
This would indeed have a large COP since all of the heat is derived from the core that is used to activate and control the device. Of course startup would still require some external source of heat as now. And, thermal run away would still be possible unless the cooling had some form of fail safe feature that activates when the core gets too hot. The current version appears to be simple to build and Rossi has a great deal of experience with its performance so I would be surprised for him to abandon it this soon. The first units will likely use added heat thermal control as now. DGT may have an advantage in their design as has been discussed before. If the spark type system truly acts like a starved fuel device, then they should be safer to operate without thermal problems. Unfortunately, they have released far too little data for us to have great confidence in their design as of this time but things may change quickly in the next few days. Dave -----Original Message----- From: James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: it is shared now and does not anymore depend only on me With active control you can go from a COP of 6 to infinite. Then the question is how often does failure of the control system occur and what are the cleanup costs. It is entirely conceivable, if not likely, that an active control version will go to market that has a relatively low frequency of failure times cost of cleanup. On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >From past information, the Rossireactor is hard to startup; it takes a long >time to startup and a long time to shutdown. . . . This is tolerable in industry but notin the home. It would not be a problem at home either. Especially not if the machine can be turned down to stand-by mode. It would use more fuel, but the fuel costs nothing. It would increase wear and tear on the machine only a little. You are thinking in terms of fossil fuel energy systems. My gut feeling is that Rossi will soon find a way to fix this problem. As I have said, I also think that the COP will not be an issue for long. I base that on gas loaded systems that run without input power or auxiliary heating, such as Arata's. - Jed
