Most folks consider heat a form of energy –kinetic energy of the particles making up matter.
However, it (heat) may not be a primary result of the reaction happening in a reactor. For example, the new energy from a reactor may start out as light (EM energy) before interacting with matter around the site of the reaction to cause heat. Bob Cook From: H LV<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 11:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcdid not catch the signifast If the goal is the conversion of energy into heat rather than the production of energy (0U), how efficient is this method compared to other methods? I mean if LENR or CF proves to be impractical as a primary source of energy then perhaps it's true value is in the production of heat. Harry On Sat, Jan 19, 2019, 1:03 AM bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> <bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: Jones— I agree with you. I did not catch the meaning of the “wall” in your discussion with Jack. I agree that it should be easy to measure electrical AC energy consumed by the pulse generator. I was focusing on the question of energy into the reactor introduced by the pulse for comparison with energy out, over and above that coming out. I also find it hard to believe that the folks funding the testing did not understand the losses of energy in the pulse generator, which were not contributing to stimulation of the reactor to release potential energy whatever that source might be. Bob Cook From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 3:48:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robert Godes podcast bobcook wrote: > You say it is easy to measure pulsed power at the wall of the Godes reactor > and suggest the measurements were accomplished, but covered up... You should > suggest a method to do this “easy” measurement. Bob, Apparently my main underlying assumption - which is apparently reversed from yours - is that the energy expended to create the special pulses MUST BE included as part of the input - even if it is much higher than what is actually contained in the pulses when they appear at the reactor. There is no free lunch obtainable from comparing low grade power (heat) to extremely high grade power (pulsed charges). For instance if pulse creation expends 50% more energy than grid AC - but is absolutely required for success, then one cannot logically ignore the loss and claim OU when much or all of the gain is required to make the pulses initially. IOW - one cannot assert that the net energy of producing a complex waveform should not also include all of the losses. High grade power is special - very special, and the losses have to included to calculate net gain. Thereforw to answer your question specifically, anyone can buy a simple AC wattmeter from Amazon for 20 bucks to do the job of ascertaining real input power from the grid. It is beyond belief to suggest that this was not done.
