Jed Rothwell wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> So most reseachers claim they (implicitly) know enough about the phenomena >> to improve the COP, but it is beneath them to test this claim?? > > No, that is not what I mean. Please read the message more carefully > and stop putting words in my mouth.
You said in full: > The required level input power is governed by mundane electrochemical > considerations, such as the distance between the anode and the > cathode. These considerations are well understood, so there is no > point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but > that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of > the phenomenon. It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions which they think will increase the COP actual decrease the COP. > Anyone with knowledge of electrochemistry knows how to improve the > overall COP, when you define that as electrochemical power input > versus total output. Improving that ratio proves nothing. The only > thing you want to improve is the power of the cold fusion reaction, > which is separate and not directly correlated with electrolysis power. It is not about improving the ratio for the sake of improving the ratio. It is about testing the assumption that they know how to improve the ratio. Don't you understand the difference? > >> It is time for more science, and fewer "I-don't-do-engineering" excuses. > > Improving the COP would be engineering, not science. As I said > previously, it would also interfere with the science in many cases, > which is why it is not done. They claim that they know how to improve the COP of a cold fusion cell! So I cam calling on them to TEST the claim. This is not engineering request. It is a scientific request! Harry
