On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> ** > > Yes it was a poor analogy, but so what? Cude’s analysis is wrong no matter > how much he obfuscates and by jumping on a poor analogy – he does not gain > credibility. **** > > ** > Which analogy is that? I was suggesting there was no analogy in which heat is used to control a positive thermal feedback. > Yes - the ICE is not a good analogy to ECat but in contrast ICF is an adequate metaphor – which is why he avoids ICF of course. In ICF, the goal is to reach a situation where each pellet self-sustains -- i.e. ignites. That is expected when the heat produced by fusion that stays within a pellet is equal to the heat added to initiate fusion. That point has been reached in the ecat, but it has not been reached in ICF, so my objection does not apply there. > Subcritical fission is also a good metaphor No, it's not, because in that case, they don't control large heat with smaller heat. They control fission reactions with neutrons. The neutrons produced by the reactions themselves are necessarily fewer, or of a less favorable energy than the external neutrons. So, there is no neutron profit, and therefore it is subcritical. But there could be an energy profit, although it's not clear it will be realized in practice. > The ECat can indeed be self-sustaining in single or in multiple units, according to the inventor. Right, and the repeated claims without demonstration makes it suspicious. > The electrical input provides *control* and prevents runaway by permitting a lower mass of active material. Well, that's his excuse, but my objection stands. If 360 W from outside the reactor is enough to initiate the reaction, it seems implausible that 1.6 kW produced inside the reactor would not sustain it. > Rossi uses electricity to make heat as part of ongoing phase-change cycling process [wild speculation deleted] The temperature was stable in the Dec hot cat. > Apparently phase-change cycling is too difficult a topic for Cude to understand. True. Your explanations sound like word salad to me. Now, some of Hawking's words read like that to me too. So you may be another Hawking. But in any case, I don't benefit from it. You're out of my league.
