Hello Jed, I think I said that the engineering will happen over many years to come. I guess a COP of 0.02 would be like an Otto motor and not to attractive. It's better be over 1. I think well above so the inconsistencies which will be determined by 'scientists' with a better measuring technology can be of no significance. The result will be deemed over COP =1 irregardless.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > > It is possible that the outcome, of Rossi's year long test, has less COP >> than what for example Peter Gluck has heard. >> If the IH statement is too calm down the expectations then so be it. >> I would say that as long as the test shows a COP better than 2, there >> will be further investment and a lot of engineering to get to the goal of a >> new energy source. >> > > If the results are certain, then it makes no difference whether the COP is > 2 or 0.02. It would be insane to abandon this research just because the COP > happens to be low in some cases. We know that the effect often occurs with > no input power, with a COP of infinity. If that can happen once, after we > learn to control the effect, it can happen every time. > > The COP is a canard. It is of no importance at this stage in the research. > Worrying about the COP now is like fretting about the need for retractable > landing gear on airplanes in 1904, six months after the first flight at > Kitty Hawk. There are a thousand issues more important than this, and when > the other issues are solved -- especially control -- we will have any COP > we want. > >
