On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>wrote: > > First, the fact that this *source* of energy thousands of times more dense >> than chemical has to be plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will >> turn most observers away. >> > > Fine, so "most observers" will be turned away by this. From an > engineering perspective, I see perfectly good reasons for it. Perhaps that > puts me and anyone else who agrees in the minority of observers. > > I have not seen perfectly good reasons for it. The reasons given that you need input heat to control the heat seem like an excuse to keep the power connected to me. Is there another example of a reaction triggered by heat that is regulated by the addition of heat? This is particularly implausible since Rossi has been claiming his devices are ready for commercial sale. Wasn't something supposed to go on sale this month, forgetting about the previous claimed sales? A device with a COP of 3 is not better than a heat pump. And the moment you can make something significantly better than a heat pump, you can use it to make electricity to close the loop. Never happens though.
