I just completed another brief review of the interesting report that was produced using the measurements from the Lugano, Switzerland test. When the isotope changes and the over unity gain seen in power production by the Hotcat are taken into proper consideration, there is very little doubt that the device is as remarkable as many of us believe. It is amazing that there remains a significant skeptical attitude among some groups.
To continue to ignore the device they are having to assume that Rossi performed magical tricks with the fuel while under careful supervision of the scientists in charge of the experiment. Also, it becomes necessary for them to question the amount of heat generated that the testers have measured. Many agree that it is unfortunate that a calibration was not performed at the actual temperature witnessed during the active test, but there were valid reasons for that occurrence. My simulations over the last couple of years indicates that there is a test which can be performed upon an ECAT like device that can not be dismissed which proves that heat energy is produced by the core fuel. The device and fuel combination that was tested in the Lugano case might not be capable of demonstrating that proof, but came close to the standard. I suspect that the Lugano device operated within what I refer to as a negative resistance region 1 device. A unit under test that operates in that manner will behave exactly like what was observed by the testers. If the positive feedback is limited in magnitude a device will not actually exhibit a true negative resistance region of operation. Instead, as the feedback increases due to core energy production one will notice that the temperature measurements rise very rapidly with a modest increase in the heater power input. This effect is clearly evident in the charts contained within that report. Had Rossi added more fuel to the device, the change would have been very dramatic and unmistakable particularly if the added fuel permitted the Hotcat to enter into one of the higher negative resistance categories(2 or 3) that I have previously discussed. Operation within a region 2 or region 3 mode would offer characteristic performance that could not be denied by the most determined skeptic. To achieve that level of proof all one needs to do is to locate the negative resistance region and determine where it falls along the temperature scale of one of the input power versus temperature curves that I have been generating. This is the span of temperatures over which the input power is falling while the device temperature is rising. The negative slope within this region makes it impossible for anyone to force the Hotcat to remain stable at a temperature within this span for any static input power. A normal system that does not operate under positive feedback conditions, such as a dummy Hotcat, can be set to any temperature desired within the operating range of the device. For every input source power level one and only one temperature will be measured. If you want to operate at any particular temperature you can gradually adjust the input drive power upwards until that condition is met. You can continue to remain at that desired temperature by keeping the input drive power constant. It is unfortunate that a Hotcat can not be obtained to subject to the testing that I have described above. I suppose that will have to wait until the proper legal protections for IP are established. At least we know of a test that can be performed upon any device which exhibits an adequate amount of positive feedback. I propose that people claiming to have a real LENR device should apply thermal insulation around the unit until it establishes a region 2 or region 3 mode. A tiny window through the thermal insulation could be included as one means to monitor the temperature of operation. Once region 2 or 3 is obtained, it will be impossible to maintain a constant temperature with any fixed input drive power provided the temperature falls within the negative resistance range. Dave
