In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:16:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] >At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: >>In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400: >>Hi, >>[snip] >> >It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs >> >>...or as Dr. Schwartz would say, an OOP. > >Well, no, even though I did refer to that term in one place. This >isn't what Mitchell calls an OOP. Mitchell's OOP is a point of >maximum energy generation, in PdD experiments with reference to input >current, whereas in this case, the "balance point" is below the OOP, >which might be anywhere up to the melting point of the fuel.
You are correct about the two being different. In fact if Rossi's device can go explosive then there is no OOP. Since according to Dr. Schwartz' definition, the energy output should drop above the OOP, whereas in a device that explodes, it doesn't. Above the balance point it just keeps on increasing until there is no fuel left, or until there is no device left, which ever comes first. (In this instance I count melting the fuel and destroying the active sites as "no device"). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
