It has appeared that Rossi's ECAT and DGT's device are animals of a different species. I have modeled the ECAT and find that the COP of 6 seems to be a consequence of the fact that he uses heat to control the generation of additional heat in a positive feedback manner. Attempting to achieve a COP that is much higher would be difficult while maintaining control and avoiding thermal run away. I have previously spoken of some possible active cooling techniques that might enable better performance, but it is not obvious how well they would work under the influence of the positive feedback built into the device.
DGT, on the other hand appears to be using some form of hydrogen ionization by means of a spark to effectively starve the fuel supplied to the active metal surface. I think of this as similar to a throttle in a gasoline engine that adjusts the amount of fuel fed into the cylinders. It seems logical to consider the control afforded by the DGT method as being superior unless other issues arise that complicate the behavior. There has been little data available from the DGT testing which can be analyzed in an attempt to answer these concerns. For instance, does the spark process lead to problems of operational lifetimes? Also, how much complexity is forced upon the users of such a system when compared to one of Rossi's design? Many additional questions can be asked since little has been revealed. One issue came into my thoughts today as I pondered an idea. The concept is based upon the way that energy is released during an LENR process. I visualize it as being either a parallel or a series release of the total energy for each net reaction. Ed's theory implies that the energy is being released in a series form where one photon after the next is radiated from the NAE and into the material. The other general type of operation suggests that an emission from a more or less entangled group of active components radiate the energy as a group in parallel. There has not be sufficient information available to determine exactly which process is the main one at this point, but they all share one common ingredient which is that energy is released in relatively large blocks. The common link is that each of the concepts end up generating a large number of moderate level energy blocks. My questions surround the interaction of these photons with the hydrogen gas that is always present and in contact with the metal surfaces. Would we expect the energy quanta being released to ionize the nearby gas in either of the systems? If it in fact does achieve this goal, then is this process not what DGT needs for their device to function properly? Why does the release of energy from the reaction not supplement that from their spark system and hence lead to additional reactions? Perhaps this does occur and could result in thermal run away of their unit. Then, with Rossi's ECAT it is obvious to ask whether or not a hydrogen ionization process might also be in effect leading to the thermal runaway danger as well as the basic operation of his positive feedback enhancement. Perhaps this is why the material gets into the act to such a large degree with the ECAT design. Rossi may be modifying the behavior of the ionization of the nearby hydrogen gas surrounding his active sites by some form of tuning of the particle sizes or other accidental features. Could his catalysis offer assistance in this manner? Do we detect a similarity between the ECAT and the DGT device that demonstrates the level of energy being emitted that can be used to improve our understanding of the processes? Do we expect hydrogen ionization to occur as a result of internal radiation? Would energy released in the form of heat of mechanical atom motion ionize the gas? What can be learned by comparing DGT to Rossi? Dave
