Lots of good, and *rational*, skepticism going on today.
Rossi's failure to deliver is likely due to the lack of competent experts in the required technologies (physics, engineering), and that is probably due to his ego and/or paranoia of someone stealing his 'secret sauce'. DGT differs in that they have an appreciation for the complexity and sophistication of the effort, and apparently hired the expertise needed. If Jones' statements about "quiescence" are in fact what is happening, and Rossi was aware of it, then the business decision to attempt a commercial unit was a major error. he should have focused on solving that problem prior to any commercial announcement. perhaps he was attempting a 'hail mary', and betting that he could solve the problem before delivery, but that decision has come back and bit him in the a$$... Also, I doubt that the quiescence problem can be solved by engineering. it is likely due to the physics of the reaction and will require strong scientific understanding to solve. Fortunately, Rossi has stoked the fires of interest in LENR, and there are plenty of very competent scientists now working on it. -m From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:22 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance From: Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat . You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified. On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup. With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently. Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a "temperature inversion" in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple - let's say it is 6*(X). Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) - that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication. Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong. They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of "quiescence". The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity). Get it? I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of "forced continuity" (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain. It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts. Jones From: Energy Liberator The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the reaction? On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: Wolf, This comes under the category of 'puffery' and it probably relates to net gain, if there is any truth to it. Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input - COP is infinite. However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then the average over an extended period could be COP-6. In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is far less. We await real data, in either case. Jones
