Oh, right, the "wires" being plugged in to "control temperature", that's some nice physical-law-violation too. Rossi is very happy to emphasize "temperature control" in the context of explaining why his device can't be unplugged ... but his interest in temperature control
completely vanishes when it's time to try to explain the "reactions", or study them, or when he builds different versions of his device designed for wildly different temperatures, etc.
Here's why Rossi's control claim violates the laws of physics. Imagine there were some reaction which generated power. How much power does it generate? Let's say P(T). (It is very generally the case that P(T) increases monotonically with temperature, but we don't need to assume that. There are weird exceptions, like pebble bed reactors. Rossi's claims violate the laws of physics no matter what P(T) looks like.)
OK, so you put your P(T) source into a canister which also, when it heats up, has some natural cooling power C(T)---it might be conductive (so C(T) = -a(T-T0)) or convective (so C(T) = -a(T-T0)^2 or thereabouts) or radiative (C(T) = -a(T^4- T0^4)). Notice these are all perfectly monotonic.
So, if we specify a temperature, we can compute the total power. If the P(T) + C(T) > 0, that means the reaction power exceeds the cooling power, and starting from this temperature the device will heat up. If P(T) + C(T) < 0, the reaction power is less than the cooling power, and starting from this temperature the device will cool down. "Maintaining temperature" happens only at zero crossings, where input and output power are matched. But notice that *if* P(T) + C(T) has a positive slope, the process is unstable---you heat up a little, that takes you to a temperature where you're heating up even faster, etc. (Or you cool a little, that takes you to a temperature where you cool faster.) If the P(T) + C(T) curve has a negative slope at the zero crossing, then the reaction is stable. Go ahead, invent a curve for P(T) + C(T).
Rossi's "stabilization" claim is that he's adding additional power R(T), in some way that varies with temperature, that turns the unstable reaction into a stable one. But we're restricted in how we can do that. R(T) is by definition positive---you can only add power, not subtract it, with a resistor plugged into a cable. You can only stabilize a system via additive power, then, if P(T) + C(T) start off
negative. You can then add a steeply-falling (R(T)) and bring the low-temperature end of the curve up past zero at some setpoint TH of your choice. There you go, you've added a zero-crossing and stabilized the system.
But that is 100% inconsistent with what Rossi says his system is doing. He says that the resistors bring the reactor into a
self-heating mode with P(T)+C(T) > 0. Sorry, Rossi, if your physical system enters a self-heating mode (P(T)+C(T) > 0) then it is
completely impossible to "stabilize" the system by adding more heat R(T), no matter what the control circuit is doing.
Maybe at higher temperatures P(T) drops with temperature, or rises more slowly than C(T) does. That can bring in a negative-slope zero-crossing and the system can self-stabilize. If that's what it does, then Rossi is lying about needing a control circuit. If P(T) and C(T) combine to give you a negative slope, there's no need for R(T) to be plugged in---the only thing it can possibly do is push the setpoint a little higher.
I invite the reader---even pteridine---to try to invent
any curve whatsoever for the nuclear-physics-reaction-rate P(T), and show that it corresponds to Rossi's claims:
- P(T) > C(T) for some range of temperatures (i.e., Rossi's claim that the reactor "heats itself")
- P(T) - C(T) does not have a zero crossing at a safe temperature (i.e., Rossi's claim that the reactor "would melt down" if the input were unplugged) and
- We can add some control signal R(T) such that P(T)-C(T)+R(T) has a zero crossing (i.e. Rossi's claim that the input provides "stability")
As usual,
either Rossi is lying about
at least some experimental results, or his process violates laws of physics far more disturbing than "he discovered a new nuclear reaction."
!
.
