Axil, Good point regarding proof of the effect and actual construction of a
useful product. The lack of evidence to date suggest the effect, if real, is
extremely self destructive making replication at low power density difficult
enough but extracting high power density is exponentially more difficult.
Rossi has to keep his control loop balanced on the head of a pin with heat
transfer fluid performing a huge fraction of the control at low frequency and
his high frequency loop by whatever means [heaters/plasmons] has to steer the
NAE “window” created by the coolant flow to stay precisely on the top of that
pin as he increases power out and flow rate in lock step. Engineering an end
product with these constrains will make the manufacture of a Lamborghini look
like child’s play. To increase robustness and flexibility of this effect it may
be the resilience of the product to self destruction that needs the most
attention, better heat sinking, higher melting temps, thermal uniformity and a
faster control loop to excite and retard the reaction. If we have to balance it
on the head of a needle than we should concentrate on doing that better and
faster. IMHO we only see a small fractions of the hot spots – those that
survive self destruction by being at a precise thermal distance from the
coolant while the closer geometry self destructs/ melts closed and he more
distant don’t achieve the initial runaway state we need to bridle.
Fran
From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:30 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards,
to 35%
There is a big difference between a certain physical process being valid and
the commercial viability of a product based on that process.
Just because a spark will explode gasoline vapor does not imply that a
Lamborghini can be designed to use that principle or that the car will sell in
the marketplace. Designing the car requires far more science and engineering
fields than demonstrating gasoline detonation.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:53 AM, John Berry
berry.joh...@gmail.commailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin, I can only assume you have misunderstood what I was saying.
Earlier you said: Not even Pons Fleischmann can lay claim to having found the
effect.
Which sound to me something like the great (not even) PF can't claim they
definitively had a real effect, so Neither can Rossi be rightly certian...
Which made it seem to me like maybe you thought that Rossi himself was ignorant
of if his effect was real or not.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but the point I was making is that if there is a
real effect that Rossi is tapping into or not is unaffected entirely by Rossi's
knowledge or belief surrounding such.
Personally I believe so-called cold fusion to be an aetheric effect, and has
the associated difficulties.
I have not paid Rossi a great deal of attention, but moving monatomic hydrogen
gas through nickle powder sound like something that should have a robust
aetheric effect to me.
But because I have low interest in wet and heat forms of FE/OU I have
insufficient study of Rossi to have drawn an independent opinion.
But my opinion based on others study is that he is either an amazing magician
or has the real thing, and has little motive to be faking and has an MO that is
at odds with a con man.
But my opinion of Rossi is meaningless.
As is the randomness of quantum probabilities on the fact that probability has
nothing to do with Rossi having anything real or not.
John
