Before we get too excited. I think two questions need to be answered.
1. When was the calibration done and under what conditions. The
amount of heat being radiated depends on the value of the effective
total emissivity of the surface. This value will change with time and
temperature. Therefore, the value needs to be determined as a function
of temperature both before and after the hot-cat was heated. Details
about how the temperature of the surface was determined also need to
be provided. A detailed description of the test is required before
these claims can be accepted.
2. How long does the hot-cat function at such high temperatures. This
time will determine whether the device is a practical source of
energy. The extra energy may be real, but if it only lasts a short
time before the NAE is destroyed, the value of the design is limited.
Ed Storms
On May 20, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting: Rossi canno obtain COP 6 without melting the rector!
Perhaps with this device that is the case, but with previous
reactors he often obtained much better ratios, and an infinite
ratio, with no input. On Oct. 7, 2011, he ran for 4 hours without
input.
People expressed doubts about these previous tests, because the
instrumentation was not good and because Rossi acts suspiciously at
times. I think it is time to put aside these doubts. I have not read
this new paper carefully, but I believe it puts to rest all doubts.
It is not possible that Rossi was lying or faking in previous tests
and only now he has something real. No one can go from nothing to
something as dramatic as this in one step. It is time for the
skeptics to admit they were wrong about Rossi. (Real skeptics, I
mean, not the pathological ones.)
There is no doubt that some of his tests did fail. He says so
himself. In a few cases, such as with NASA, he said the reactor was
working but they disagreed. The fact that it did not work at times
does not in any way mean that it never worked. A real experimental
device works sometimes but not other times. All of the cold fusion
reactors I know of, made by F&P, Mizuno, McKubre and others
sometimes failed and sometimes worked. Frankly, at this stage in the
development of the cold fusion, I would be suspicious of a device
that always works.
I do not think the input to output ratio (COP), has ever been
significant in any cold fusion experiment. It reflects limitations
of the test equipment or the conditions of that particular
experiment. Many experiments must be run at sub-optimal temperatures
and other conditions because laboratory test equipment does not work
at high temperatures, or because it is difficult to measure heat at
high temperatures. These limitations have no bearing on the
technological potential of cold fusion. Once people learn to control
the reaction, I have never had the slightest doubt they will be able
to achieve any temperature up to the melting point of the host
metal, and any COP they find convenient. This is simply not an
issue. Many tests have shown that cold fusion can be "fully
ignited" (self-sustaining). It may be more convenient or safer to
run it with input power, but input power will be a small fraction of
output with any technology.
- Jed
