This may be of interest to Dave - in modeling Rossi's thermodynamics https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/journals/index.php/Heat_Mass_Transfer/a rticle/view/69/145 There is a conceptual roadblock with understanding the E-Cat related to the subject of thermal gain - contrasted with the need for continuing thermal input.
In simple terms, the argument is this: if there is real thermal gain in the reaction (P-out > P-in) then why is continuing input of energy required? Why not simple recycle some of the gain, especially if the gain is strong such as if it was at COP=6 ? There are several partial answers to this question. One of them involves keeping positive feedback to a far lower level than optimum (for net gain) to avoid the possibility of runaway. Another is based on models of thermal inertial. Another is based on the fact that the real COP of Ni-H in general may be limited to a lower number than most of us hope is possible. A third answer, or really a clarification of thermal inertial would be seen in Fig 2 on page 4 of the above cited article, where two models are seen side by side. If we also add a requirement for a threshold thermal plateau for the Rossi reaction to happen, which includes a narrow plateau (more like a ridge) where negative feedback turns to positive, then we can see that the second model makes it important to maintain an outside input, since there is no inherent smoothness in the curve, and once a peak has been reached the downslope can be abrupt . Which is another way of saying that thermal inertia is not a smooth curve at an important scale, and thus natural conductivity and heat transfer characteristics may not be adequate to maintain a positive feedback plateau, at least not without an outside source of heat. This may not be a clear verbalization of the thermodynamics, and perhaps someone can word it more clearly - but it explains the need for the "goldilocks" or 3-bear mode of reaction control for E-Cat. (not too hot and not too cold)
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
