Dennis,
You just answered my last question. I guess I should have read through all the recent posts before asking. Actually Rossi still claims to achieve a COP of 6 which has been his specification for a very long time. Some of the earlier demonstrations may have yielded better, but they were not well controlled as far as is known. Dave -----Original Message----- From: DJ Cravens <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 11:47 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up CMNS started (or restarted) with the intent of experimental discussions but it is seldom that, now mostly spinning theories- Seldom any "nuts and bolts". I think the only real forum for nuts and bolts are papers and posters these days. I expect to just write up a simple poster for the meeting and go from there. I am staying busy these days. After all this is all just a "hobby" for me and life goes on. I am hoping to find enough "hot" samples to fill my "jug". The problems are the trade offs in COP, absolute power, temperature,.... I think Mitch got to around 20 with stimulation at MIT but very very low absolute power. I am doing a similar electrical stimulation of loaded powder but with C instead of ceramic separators to avoid sintering and it allows for greater currents and controls. Rossi claims to have highpower but at lower COP (it gets lower each time I look). You need tobe above 5 and preferably above 10 if you have to stimulate the samples. And thenyou need a big sample for more power. I just never could get much from Un-stimulatedgas and Ni. I am stuck with Pd and D, but then the cost is through the roof for areasonably large system. (however, additives seem to help) Dennis CC: [email protected] From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days.. hurry up Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:13:48 -0700 Dennis, the CMNS group is the proper forum. Would you explain what you are proposing there? Ed
