There are two counterarguments to the proposition that an electric or electronic based mechanism contributes to the establishment or the control of the Rossi effect.
First, for much of the long history of the Cat-e development, a single heater was used to activate and control the Cold fusion reaction in the Cat-e. Such a design was documented in the patent Rossi originally made public. The second heater option was added in one particular deign configuration when the ultra-small Cat-e was developed to counter the downsizing of the primary internal heater at start up. A critical reaction mechanism must be reflected in every design option to be considered as causative to the reaction, IMHO. Second, there is a cat-e design option currently in development that does not use any input energy to control the Rossi reaction. This type of design will absolutely speak against any non-thermal control agent affecting the Cat-e reaction. Best regards Axil On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Terry, > > Stray current between two resistance heaters would be counter-intuitive, > since the heaters are supposed to be well insulated electrically, and > therefore not thermionic - so we must ask: what kind of current flow is > even > possible between two resistance heaters should you desire to maximize that > feature? Could the heaters have been altered to assist in thermionics? I > believe they could. > > Of course, everything about the Rossi device is a bit counterintuitive > (assuming it is producing anomalous heat above the trigger temperature but > I'm surprised no one has considered a thermionic possibility more than > superficially. Current flow could be vitally important. A few catalysts > work > ONLY when charged. > > To restate the obvious, the external band heater, operating through the > water flow CANNOT heat the reactor more than superficially to begin with - > presenting the case that it almost has to have *some other function.* What > is that function? > > We know the power supply is PWM from the type of controller used - but we > do > not know the details, and PWM covers a wide range of possibilities. There > appears to be no dedicated ground (earth). The internal heater will > naturally be hotter, due to its location, and would naturally function as a > thermionic cathode to some degree, to the extent that it can do so - since > electron flow will follow thermal flow. The voltage difference between the > two heaters would be minimal but current could be stronger than anyone > realizes. > > Matter of fact, even when the heaters are off, there could be current flow > if the "lead shielding" is in fact there for the main purpose of creating a > Seebeck effect. Bianchini proved that there was zero radioactivity during a > long period of operation (not low, but zero above background) so the > "lead" must serve some other purpose. > > All of this is based on supposition more than fact, but why not consider > the > possibility that current flow through the device is necessary, and the > Seebeck effect provides it when the resistence heaters are turned off ? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Terry Blanton > > Early on, I speculated that the band heater serves as an anode with > the internal heater as a cathode allowing a current to flow through > the reactor core providing an excess of electrons (in addition to > heating the core). After all, the theory is one of electron capture, > eh? > > T > >
