On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:17 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote:
> If you genuinely want an explanation of how the eCAT is positive feedback, > which Dave is trying to do, backed up by his model, then it requires > following a line of reasoning. > Wrong discussion. The question of COP > 1 here arose in the context of industrialization, not in the explanation for controlling positive feedback. > Dave is NOT asking you for an acceptance that Rossi’s device does have COP>1; he is only asking that we temporarily accept that condition, and follow the reasoning from there. That's exactly what I did in the other context. I said, *even if* the COP were 3, it wouldn't be enough for industrialization. And then 2 people pounced on me, suggesting I was admitting that the COP was 3. > Why are you afraid to do that? I'm not. That's exactly what I am doing. In the feedback system, I argue that if the COP were 3 (or especially 6), then removing the external heat would not quench it. And if it were 3 or 6, it would be easy to make it self-sustain by controlling the heat loss with insulation and regulated cooling.
