Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: I'm complaining because any use of LENR will have to take much more into > account than this very simplified designed describes. What value does this > design have? It is a obvious engineering solution to removing heat from a > source. It does not solve the basic problem that prevents LENR from working > at all. Would you give me money to study LENR if all I provided was an > idealized heat exchanger? >
I have to agree with Ed on this. I have criticized Dennis Cravens on similar grounds; i.e., the Model A does not make the demonstration easier to understand or more believable. If you can prove the cold fusion device produces heat, you best do that by the simplest means, which is calorimetry. Make the best calorimeter you can. I do not see any point to adding on a toy device. (The "best" calorimeter might not be the most precise or expensive, by the way.) If the toy was necessary to control the reaction then it would make sense. For example, if heat removal is the key to stabilizing the reaction. I do not think that is the case. - Jed
