RE: [Vo]:Part3 approaching OU?

[Stiffler Scientific]

>>the only way that it would not be OU, at least arguably, is if there is
>>a cooling effect of the cell during operation. Is that the case?

The cell is quit low in overall starting efficiency and the figure I give
are to indicate (only) the improvement seen by adding CRE to a cell versus
what the cell will do without CRE. If you start with a 1% eff. cell and
increase its efficiency by 57% you still don't have much, other than the
improvement from CRE. Should you have a 80% eff. cell, well you did the
numbers.

I think what you are waiting for is Part#6 that starts CREC, this fellow is
controversial.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Part3 approaching OU?


Stiffler Scientific wrote:

> Compared to the same 'Constant DC Current' without CRE, the cell with CRE
> showed a 57.069% improved efficiency as derived from (Output/Input). The
gas
> production was 137.1% above that predicted by the Faraday Equation for the
> input current. With an input current of 321mA (658mA max - 16mA min -
240mA
> True - 321 mA normalized), currents in the Control Element were measured
at
> 1.028amps max and 1.638amps in the Cathode circuit.

> OU NO!, but stay tuned.

I may be confusing experiments but if this is true current, and if the 1
ohm resistor shows max/0.443V min/0.012V and an avg/0.186V (50% duty
almost square wave), as was indicated in an earlier incarnation, then
the only way that it would not be OU, at least arguably, is if there is
a cooling effect of the cell during operation. Is that the case?

Jones