This is a good start Josh. I think I can explain that to you since you seem to be a pretty sharp guy. Just keep an open mind.
The ECAT operates as a device with a positive temperature coefficient with respect to heat. At low temperatures there is little if any extra heat being internally produced by the core. When the drive electronics heats the resistors they conduct heat to the core of the device which rises in temperature as a result. There is a functional relationship between the core temperature and the heat it produces. I have tried numerous functions and they all behave in a somewhat related fashion. The exact one in play by Rossi's device is hidden at this point so don't try to muddy the water by asking for that knowledge since you like to avoid the main issues. The ECAT core finds itself driving a thermal resistance that depends upon the system design. The functional relationship of core heat released versus temperature can be differentiated throughout it operating range. Now, if you take the product of the thermal resistance and the above derivative you will find a temperature above which this result is greater than 1. This is the first temperature which I call critical and is where the positive feedback gain is greater than 1. If the ECAT is left in this region, it can go either higher in temperature with an ever increasing rate toward destruction, or cool off and return back to room temperature. This is the point that it is important for you to acknowledge. Do you accept that this is possible so that we can continue further into the details? If you state that it is not possible for any heat to be generated by the core, then the rest of the discussion is not worth pursuing. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 1:46 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ethics of the E-Cat investigation put into question On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: With that in mind, please submit for discussion your main reason for discounting my explanation so that it can be properly addressed and everyone who is following this concept can draw their own conclusions. It is my sincere wish that you will eventually understand the process and help to clarify it to other skeptics. In other words, you got nothin'. I made my case. Feel free to explain whatever part of it you disagree with. And if you have a chance, can you specify the functional dependence of reaction rate on temperature, and temperature on total power produced that would give the observed behavior and still quench when the external power is shut off (as you say), or melt down (as Jed says).
