David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
I guess I hit a touchy subject with this one. Rossi's device came up because
his heat gain(6) is so low relative to, as example, DGT(>20).
>>Rossi has demonstrated a self-sustaining reaction lasting 4 hours. The ratio
>>is infinite. Why do you say the ratio is 6?
>>In any case, the ratio is easy to improve with any cold fusion device. It is
>>just a matter of engineering. With any electrochemical FP device improving
>>the ratio is trivial, but it is not done because that ends obscuring the
>>results and making the >>experiment more difficult.
This is Rossi's claim on every question that has been posed to him. If you
read his blog, you will see that he only guarantees an output to input ratio of
6 to 1 and never more. Please check this out, I am not making it up. He has
never suggested that self sustaining is a reliable mode of operation for very
extended periods.
I tend to agree with you that it should be an engineering problem to reach
higher ratios but his own claims must trump our speculation. Why does he stick
so strongly to the lower performance figure? I would like to know his reasons.
The heat pump issue arouse just because of the relatively low gain performance
. . .
>>The word "gain" implies that the reaction is some form of amplification, or
>>that output is coupled to input. There is no evidence for that. If that were
>>the case, self-sustained heat would be impossible. Input power is needed to
>>trigger the reaction or to >>keep the cell at operating temperature. You can
>>do the latter with insulation.
Rossi does not claim self sustaining operation for extended periods of time.
That is something we are assuming. The "gain" term does not necessarily apply.
All that he states is that the output is 6 times the input power by
specification and most likely that is only true at full power output. We must
consider that Rossi appears to be in a battle with thermal runaway at this
point in his engineering development, hence the lower gain.
The 1 hour time frame suggested as adequate to prove self sustaining of the
reaction is absurd. If super accurate instrumentation were available to
measure temperatures at many internal points and power input could be extremely
well determined then that might be correct.
>>No instrumentation is needed. Human senses alone suffice. The observers felt
>>the heat coming from the device hours after the power was turned off. Simple
>>first-principle physics and observations of everyday objects such as a pot of
>>boiling water >>left to cool in the kitchen prove beyond doubt it was
>>producing kilowatts of heat. There is no way it could be doing that from
>>stored heat or chemical heat with such a small cell. No heat was stored prior
>>to the self-sustaining phase. On the contrary, >>it produced a great deal of
>>excess before that.
Unfortunately, I have seen some well designed simulations on the web that have
included internally stored energy being released for a long period of time that
can not be totally dismissed. My best efforts suggest that the models are not
capable of matching Rossi's performance, but they come much too close for total
comfort. All of the closeness would go away if the test period were extended
by a modest number of hours. Why should I trust my gut feelings about
temperature- time relationships when they can be augmented by good test
equipment and proven? I am not the only one who would like a modest amount of
scientific proof instead of words.
>>You are demanding "instrumentation" to prove something that any cook in the
>>last 100,000 years would have known with absolute certainty. This is a
>>distortion of the scientific method. Instruments are important to science,
>>but even more important >>are observations and common sense knowledge of how
>>things work. The human senses are reliable and just as good as any instrument
>>for this particular test. Natural science observations of things like rocks,
>>animal behavior, smell, appearance, >>heat and cold are just good -- and just
>>as "scientific" -- as a reading from a multi-million dollar laboratory
>>instrument. In modern science we have elevated the instrument and the
>>computer too far above old fashioned, hands-on human interaction with
>>>>objects, and the human senses. The primary school test in which an egg is
>>sucked into a bottle is proof that there is a vacuum in the bottle. It is
>>definitive, irrefutable proof. If you brought in a million-dollar vacuum
>>gauge and measured the vacuum in >>the bottle to 8 significant decimal
>>places, that would not prove the existence of the vacuum any better than the
>>simple, direct, visual observation of the egg does.
>>- Jed
I disagree that the test results thus far are so very simple and obvious to
everyone. Science with good instrumentation is required when the test is of
short duration. If Rossi had run this test for several more hours then just
about everyone out there would be convinced. Do we assume that the skeptics
are all ignorant? Are we the sole source of knowledge in this arena? Why is
it fair for us to defend Rossi when he could defend himself with a bit more
effort? Perhaps he does not want anyone to have the required proof so that he
can buy more time for development? No one knows the answer to this question.
We are on the verge of a historic development as LENR begins to dominate the
energy equation. The issue is much too important and the claims are far too
reaching for us to accept at the current level of proof. Eggs being sucked
into bottles is trivial in comparison. Some scientific discoveries are more
important than others and demand proof beyond off the cuff feelings.
You can have the last words about this issue as I think it has been pretty much
covered as of now. Some of us expect reasonable levels of proof, perhaps more
than others, but that is human nature.
Dave
