You forgot dark/collapsed matter On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Mint Candy <m.ca...@gmx.us> wrote:
> Reminder, > > > http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Va3objv1cIE/SeCVwj_HVwI/AAAAAAAAAYs/FYmv70j8LbM/s400/elephant.gif > > RFG > Complex Electronics > AC or DC heating > Toroidal Chamber > Electro Magnetic Damping > Grain of sand on beach conversion (E=MC^2) > Hydrides > Energy Barriers > Phonon Lattice Oscillations > Nano Structures > Catalyists > Ionization > ................ Where does it all end? > > My goodness, it is an Elephant! > > Your Sweetness > > David Roberson said: > Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:58:24 -0700 > > > The input is not directly transformed into output but you must initially apply > heat of some type to coax Rossi's ECAT to put out excess heat energy. It does > nothing until the heat input occurs and after that the amount of heat > generated depends upon the internal temperature. What controls does he have > to > make a useful system? As far as I can determine, his only input is resistive > heating and the output heat is directed to the coolant or radiated to some > point. He must be able to turn off the device in some manner and it is > evident > that cutting the drive power is the way he does it. > > > Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. > The internal temperature has always dropped toward room in his experiments. > The famous October test of last year did not continue at the maximum power > output for very long (less than an hour if I recall) and certainly not > forever. > Furthermore, Rossi has stated on more occasions than I can count that his > device will not have a COP specification of greater than 6 if it is controlled > and useful. Read his journal if you question this statement; it is very > clearly posted many times to different persons. > > > There are other systems that behave in different manners, such as the DGT > device, where they achieve control by effectively starving the thing of fuel. > And I am not sure any of the electrolysis mechanisms are controlled that > exhibit significant amounts of output power. Could you direct me to any of > these devices that put out heat energy that is at least 2 times the input > energy and can be turned on and off? If these devices only put out low > quality > heat, then COP might not be useful in describing them. > > > The entire concept of controlled constant self sustaining power output is a > fallacy. Constant output devices typically employ negative feedback to > achieve > stability. The open loop gain determines how closely the output matches the > input. Rossi type LENR devices put out additional heat energy as the > temperature rises which is a recipe for instability. This constitutes > positive > feedback and it comes in handy if your goal is to get plenty of output with a > minimum of input power. The catch is that the internally generated heat can > supply all the drive needed once it reaches a critical level. If that occurs > you are on your way toward a latching point where most attempts on your part > to > lower the drive power for control are over ruled. > > > If a system reaches an operating point that is controlled by positive feedback > as in Rossi's case, there is no standing still allowed. These types of > devices > are balanced on a razors edge at the self sustaining point and the slightest > noise will send it off in one of two directions. The only place they will not > remain is at the self sustaining point. Rossi has made it quite clear that > his > devices attempt to thermally run away which is associated with the positive > feedback operation. > > > So, if Rossi wants to have a useful device that is controlled he is required > to > supply modulated input power to achieve that function. Clearly the less > input > required, the better from an efficiency point of view. So, it makes perfect > sense to attempt to optimize the device at the largest controlled value of COP > that he can safely handle. He is no fool, and he realizes that the input > power > required is not a good thing and thus would love to reduce it. This is not as > easy as some think. > > > I want to mention again that Rossi could use controlled cooling in conjunction > with his controlled heating to gain additional control, but thus far this has > not been seen in his public displays. > > > The magic word is control. COP and control are bound together in a Rossi type > device. > > > Jed, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Some of us are > convinced that COP in Rossi's device is important, including him. > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:52 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity > > > Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > This is most interestingin light of the totality of past experiments in LENR > which are “believable”going back twenty years. > > There seems to beexcellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but less > than > two . . . > > > > > The term "COP" has no meaning in the context of a cold fusion experiment. > Output power is not -- in any way -- contingent upon or dependent upon input. > Input is not amplified or transformed in any sense. Input can easily be turned > off and output continues, with a COP of infinity. This is true of all cold > fusion experiments and it has been been observed by just about every > researcher > I know. > > > The only reason there is any input power in a cold fusion experiment is to > form > the hydride, and to keep it from de-gassing and unforming itself. In gas > loading and other systems, no input power is needed. > > > The ratio of input to output can easily be changed by altering the physical > shape of the anode or cathode, or the distance between them. The techniques > are > trivial, and known to any electrochemist. The ratio is not optimized because > that would interfere with other aspects of the experiment. Once we learn to > control the reaction it will easily be adjusted to any number we want. > Attempts > to optimize it now are a waste of time. > > > All discussions of this ratio, and the so-called COP, are a waste of time in > my > opinion. > > > - Jed > > > > > > >
