The COP will be higher outside on a wintery windy night. Harry
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > I agree Dave, I have been providing this explanation for several years > without any effect. I'm glad you are adding your voice. The critical point > at which the temperature must be reduced depends on the degree of thermal > contact between the source of energy (the Ni powder) and the sink (The > outside world). The better the thermal contact between these two, the > higher the stable temperature and the greater the COP. Rossi has not > achieved a COP even close to what is possible. > > Ed Storms > On May 30, 2013, at 2:23 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > There seems to be a serious hangup over why a heat generating device needs > some form of heating input to sustain itself. The skeptics can not seem to > get their arms around this issue so I will make another short attempt to > explain why this is important. > > To achieve a high value of COP the ECAT operates within a region that is > unstable. This translates into a situation where the device if given the > chance will attempt to increase its internal energy until it melts or > ceases to operate due to other damage. Control of the device is obtained > by adding external heat via the power resistors allowing the core to heat > up toward a critical point of no return. > > Just prior to that critical temperature the extra heating is rapidly > halted. The effect of this heating collapse is to force the device core > heating to change direction and begin cooling off. Positive feedback can > work in either direction; that is, the temperature can be either increasing > or decreasing and the trick is to make it go in the desired direction. > > The closer to the critical point that Rossi is able to switch directions, > the longer the temperature waveform will linger near that point before > heading downward. This is a delicate balance and most likely the reason > Rossi has such a difficult fight on his hands to keep control. High COP, > such as 6, is about all that can be safely maintained. > > The explanation above is based upon a spice model that I have developed > and run many times. Statements by Rossi on his blog have been consistent > with the performance that I observe with the model. > > It is important to realize that a device such as this does not operate in > a simple manner such as that anticipated by the skeptics. I suppose that > is why they fail to understand Rossi's machine. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:26 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> ** ** >> *From:* Joshua Cude **** >> ** ** >> >> First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more >> dense than chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) >> will turn most observers away.**** >> >> ** ** >> Not necessarily “most” - only those observers whose ability to deduce >> and extrapolate from experience is severely challenged. **** >> ** ** >> For instance, an atomic bomb is initiated by a chemical explosion, and it >> is thousands of time more energy dense. >> > > I'm not talking about initiating. I'm talking about sustaining. I have > no problem using electricity to initiate the ecat. But if it's a source of > energy, it should behave like one and be able to at least power itself. > > A match is needed to ignite a firecracker, but once ignited, the > explosion sustains itself. > > A match is needed to start a campfire, but not to sustain it. > > A battery is used to start a car engine, but not to sustain it. > > And a chemical explosion is used to initiate a fission bomb. But once > initiated, it sustains itself using the chain reaction until the fuel is > dispersed below critical mass. This is abundantly clear in a nuclear power > plant, where the reaction requires no input energy to sustain itself. > > (And the energy density of the biggest fission bomb deployed (counting > it's total weight) was 100,000 times that of chemical, and the energy > density of the uranium fuel itself was in the millions.) > > A hydrogen bomb is initiated by and atomic bomb explosion, and it is >> a thousand times more energy dense. **** >> ** >> > The fission bomb initiates fusion, and the fusion and fission then > sustain each other, but again, once it's initiated, it's self-sustaining. > > (And the energy density is only 10 to 100 times that of the best fission > bombs.) > > > Moreover, fusion power will not be considered a success until "ignition" > is achieved (and not even then), which represents the point where the > reaction sustains itself, even if only on a tiny scale in the case of > inertial fusion. > > ** >> Most observers do not have much difficulty extrapolating from that kind >> of known phenomenon - into another kind of mass-to-energy conversion, >> requiring a substantial trigger.**** >> ** >> > > Except extrapolation of those known phenomena should end in an energy > source that is self-sustaining. The ecat isn't. > > >> ** >> In any event - “thousands of times” more dense is not accurate IMO – >> closer to 200 times. **** >> ** >> > Not sure it's really a matter of opinion. The claim in Levi's paper is > 6e7 Wh/kg, which is a few thousand times the energy density of gasoline and > more than a thousand times that of hydrogen. That's what I was referring > to. And they say they stopped the reaction before it was exhausted. The > potential energy density if it's coming from nuclear reactions is millions > of times chemical. > > >> ** >> If you understand “recalescence” and then can extrapolate to a reaction >> which is recycled around the phase change, then the rationale of adding >> energy to gain energy is more understandable. This is a phenomenon of phase >> change seen every day in a steel mill.**** >> ** >> > > Except that recycling around a phase change is not going to net any > energy, and it has no similarity to what's allegedly happening in the ecat. > There, according to the authors, an exothermic reaction is triggered by > heat. And if 400 W from the outside of the reactor cylinder can initiated > the reaction, I don't see how 1.5 kW from inside the reactor could not > sustain it. > > Ordinary combustion is triggered by heat, and generates heat, and that's > how it sustains itself. No one ever talks about COPs with coal or oil or > gasoline. > > The only way I can think of to contrive a similar kind of need of a > smaller external source of heat to sustain a larger source of heat is if > the external source is more concentrated and hotter. But that's clearly not > the case in the hot cat, where the external source is diffuse and at a > lower temperature. > > ** >> >> Next, to complete the explanation - we will need to demonstrate how >> mass is converted into energy in a order one-time recalescence event to >> look like a succession of events.**** >> ** >> > Could I have a raspberry vinaigrette with that word salad, please. > > No matter what lame excuse you or anyone else can dig up to allow Rossi > to use input power to sustain the ecat, for it to revolutionize energy, it > will have to substantially exceed the COP of a heat pump, and that will > allow closing the loop using perfectly standard technology. Since he > already claims to be market-ready, failure to run the thing on it's own > makes it look like a farce. > > > > > >
