David wrote: " In my opinion, a COP of 1.1 is likely to be measurement error. It may be real, but I would not bet on it."
You could be right David. I'll keep working to improve measurements, calorimetry, and hopefully COP (assuming LENR is taking place). I think my standard might be a bit lower than 2 for a COP. I'd be convinced with 1.5 (say 135W out vs. 90 in). Kind of hard for the measurements to be that far off, because in the current setup, that would be something like a 150C temp difference. Your point is well taken on crying wolf. I'm not trying to claim any certainty or convince anyone. I'm suggesting the results are promising and worthy of follow up. On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:49 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Jones, > > We are mostly in agreement. And, I realize how difficult and dangerous it > is to experiment with the fuel mixture as well as performing the high > temperature experiments. I changed from mostly hardware design and > development to software over the years as I came to the conclusion that it > is very difficult to deal with the equipment issues of the first type even > thought there remains many interesting problems to solve in both areas. > One can gain great knowledge chasing unexpected behavior of RF and other > analog type devices and it is very rewarding to solve those difficult > problems. > > Software and simulation also generates many mental rewards. One that I > found particularly interesting is my model of the Mizuno calorimeter about > which I posted last evening. It is truly amazing that my model can take > the input coolant temperature, ambient temperature, and pulse power > magnitude and timing as inputs and generate a virtually flat line in > simulated coolant temperature once the noise sources are subtracted from > the measured coolant input data. Here I refer to noise sources as being > variation in ambient temperature, leaking pump power, and finally the > actual signal itself to achieve a good balance. > > Once the balance is disrupted by excess power, I can add that back to the > input signal so that balance is again restored. The addition is an > accounting of the excess energy that the device generates. With this > system I can detect an addition of approximately 1000 joules of excess > energy per pulse. The signal associated with an excess energy ratio of 3 > to 1 would blow the scale off the charts. It would be nearly 100 times the > sensitivity of my simulation. > > Back to the subject at hand. I have a great concern that it is just too > easy to make instrument errors which make a small apparent signal look real > when in fact it is not. I have witnessed this on several occasions and I > do not want us to fall into that trap too often again. Our credibility > will suffer if we cry wolf on too many occasions and it might not help for > us to admit the errors after the fact since the damage has already taken > place. Give me a real signal to measure or simulate and I can prove that > it exists. If someone generates a true, honest COP of 2, then anyone > should be game for us to convince of its reality. In my opinion, a COP of > 1.1 is likely to be measurement error. It may be real, but I would not bet > on it. > > Then you should ask why is it limited to only 1.1 when Rossi and the > Russian appear to achieve much larger numbers? It is premature to make a > good judgement on the Russian experiment, but his calorimeter looks too > simple to screw up if the indicated numbers are valid. And, the three or > so data points that he published appear to demonstrate what would be > expected according to some of my earlier simulations. I think he has a > valid system but it is going to take more data to confirm that belief. > > I suppose that I am getting more conservative with time. It is so very > important that LENR come to market as quickly as possible and we need good > tools to make this happen. Perhaps standing by is not the best way to put > it, but I feel that we will be better served to expect a device to perform > somewhat closer to the state of the art set by Rossi in this case. At > least it should operate at a level that can not be denied easily. In my > opinion that is a COP of 2 or more. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Jan 27, 2015 2:42 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Jack Cole improvement in LiOH design > > *From:* David Roberson > > … As you point out, a real COP of 1.1 above chemical effects is as valid > as one of 2.5 provided it can be easily proven to exist. That proof is > where the problem lies… It will be much better if and when Jack finds a > method of raising the COP of his system and before that we should stand > by. > > > Of course, everyone wants to see higher COP, and rock solid proof - but if > there is real gain at all, over and above the oxidation of aluminum and > other reactants, based on the mass and redox chemistry which is available- > then there is likely to be no obvious upper limit on how far incremental > advances can take us. There is only so much a lone experimenter can do. > > I think there is a better than 50/50 probability that there is real > thermal gain here, above the known chemistry of the reactants. There is a > strong case that SPP and f/H are the main culprits for gain, since recent > improvements were based on optimizing those parameters. > > IMO, the last thing that anyone who is committed to the field should do is > to “stand by” at least if and when they find an opportunity. The field is > too important and success is to close, to merely let someone else take all > the risks. Lest you take this the wrong way, Dave, I realize that you > personally are already involved and have provided lots of valuable > analysis. Everyone has an area of expertise, but as many competent > “hand-on” experimenters as possible are needed to pursue small variations > on what looks to be a replicatable and simplified theme. > > There is a risk of wasting one’s time, of course. But that is no different > from trying to replicate Rossi, Parkhomov or anyone who claims higher COP, > but who may be untrustworthy at such a basic level that their claims are > shaky. I am impressed with Cole’s candor and the fact he wants to find > errors in his technique, if there are any. > > And with this simpler design, there are so many obvious ways to improve > COP that it is only a matter of time and money, rather a systemic > limitation. For instance, Cole uses very little nickel (Vale 255). That is > an obvious way to go – add more nickel. He needs a larger power supply. He > could be 200 degrees too low. There is a need to try AC and pulsed input. > Another obvious way to go is to use AlanG’s compression fittings on a > longer tube, so that sealing is not an issue - and so that pressurized H2 > or D2 from a tank can be used. There are dozens of ways to proceed now, > with time and money being the major drawbacks. > > But the one safety hazard that could ruin everything (insofar as > incremental advance goes) is for some undergrad to blow off his hands, or > worse, trying to mix up a compound with LAH. The stuff can be deadly on > simple exposure to water. Hopefully, we now have a way around that, thanks > to Jack Cole. > > Jones > > >
