On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric Walker <eric.wal...@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. >> > > It seems like a useful filter. Observers who turn away for this reason do > not understand the claim. They do not understand energy. It is better for > everyone if they turn away at an early stage. > > > No. Observers who accept this claim are far too gullible. It's true input could be present in a proof of principle demo. But Rossi's been claiming commercial ready devices for more than 2 years. No device with a COP of 3 is going to make a significant impact. If Rossi is claiming a revolutionary new *source* of energy, he should be able to demonstrate it without depending on another energy source, other than to initiate it. And when he can't he loses confidence even in the proof of principle demo, especially when it's a thermal-to-thermal conversion.
