That is not correct Robin. Kinetic energy is calculated directly by the
magnitude of relative velocity of the ship to the observer and therefore the
second guy sees essentially no net change in kinetic energy once the drive
cycle is completed. Also notice that the energy is nonlinear with velo
Robin, I just came up with a thought experiment that lends support to the idea
that a reactionless drive is not likely to exist. Take 2 different observers,
one that is moving beside the ship at the same velocity as it has prior to
activating the drive. The second one is moving at a velocity
Robin, you were fortunate enough to see something strange that day. My wife
and I witnessed some type of UFO a few years ago as well. I was driving and
she was in the passengers seat. All I saw was a red ball moving through the
trees that appeared much like the way a laser does when shined on
It would be refreshing to find that the energy is returned, but I harbor no
expectation of that occurring. Consider that what we consider acceleration is
exactly the same as deceleration as far as a ship is concerned. In either
situation the ship is changing velocity as a function of time due
Here I have to disagree. It makes more sense to assume that he looses energy
during both accelerations. If that energy goes into the zpe field then it will
just vanish as far as any observer can determine. The guy on the ship is
satisfied that he used up some of the mass of his vehicle to ac
One issue that tends to support the thought that the internal energy can vanish
without a visible trace is that the man onboard the ship can detect that he is
undergoing acceleration while the drive is active. If it is eventually
confirmed that a force arises from the activation of the drive t
ositron.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
I suppose that if one can assume that mass can just vanish into somewhere
without l
coupling between angular momentum and linear momentum and
related energy states whether those states are negative or positive--I sound
like Rossi--
Bob
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05 AM
I have been conducting numerous simulations of the expected behavior of a
thermally controlled energy source such as the HotCat designed by Rossi. Now I
have constructed a technique that can be utilized to characterize a design and
determine many of its important parameters.
It would be advanta
sticism.
John
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:05 AM, David Roberson wrote:
When the ship was moving in one direction only we calculate that all of the
missing mass ends up as kinetic energy of the ship. But now that two
directions are used and we end up at the original starting point and velo
universe has been transferred to the negative sea--the Dirac
sea.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
Yes, he can determine that he has
look out the window
and see that he is moving relative to objects that were fixed before he
started his travel and are assumed to have remained fixed.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:21 PM
Subj
ed to be fixed relative to his
initial position. This would be the reaction less drive device in his space
ship.
Bob Cook
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a
ass of the 2 protons.
So if we can make and destroy (increase and decrease) rest mass at will then we
can again move a weight that is heavier when we push off then when it comes to
a stop.
Neither of these seem close to practical, but are they flawed?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:21 PM, D
you describe the operation of one and how is that different than what we
normally expect?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:21 PM, David Roberson
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 12:02 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:26 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I encourage anyone out there with knowledge about how to overcome the obvious
problems to offer
such think as a reactionless drive. Particles must be being
produced in the vacuum by EMF.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Yes Axil. The drive would then qualify as a standard one and the problem
dissolves. This does not appear to what the proponents of a reactionless
idea what you were talking about with relative mass changes etc...
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:25 PM, David Roberson wrote:
No problem with that concept John. Pressing the spring initially adds the
energy that is latter released. Notice that the light energy carries mass
which of course has
standard 3-D space, but still conserves energy/mass, its just not
observable yet.
You must think outside the 3-D box.
Engineers do this better than scientists. Note Bob Higgins recent comment
attributed to a mentor of his.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
reactionless.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might
not be easy, but it can be done.
The reactionless drive spaceship can not
the vacuum, then the drive is not reactionless.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:23 PM, David Roberson wrote:
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might
not be easy, but it can be done
7; for you?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:23 AM, David Roberson wrote:
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might
not be easy, but it can be done.
The reactionless drive spacesh
That is the point Robin. In the case of a car you can find where all of the
original mass is located after the car accelerates to a new velocity. It might
not be easy, but it can be done.
The reactionless drive spaceship can not find the lost mass that is assumed to
be converted into energy t
Any system that Rossi is concerned about must have a large amount of power
output and have high COP. If it does not meet this performance then it can not
compete.
Do we know of anyone else that has a device of that sort? Surely he does not
refer to DGT since they appear to be out of sight.
You have done a pretty good job of beating this horse Jed. Unless the power
being delivered by the pump changes depending upon some parameter that varies
with time it should be true that the heat due to the pump is constant
throughout the duration of the experiment and balances out. I assume t
frame it will unbalance the
spatial forces in both frames because of the Lorentzian translations.
Fran
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 4:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:They call me a moron. A reply.
It seems to me
It seems to me that the reactionless type of drive does seem to violate common
sense. By this statement I mean that if we assume that internal energy is
converted into kinetic energy by using the drive then the mass of the spaceship
would appear to be different according to different observers
Axil, he may be responding to the postings that I produced which outline how a
thermally controlled device might operate. Knowing how the various tradeoffs
interact should allow the competition to save themselves a lot of
experimentation. Perhaps my simulations are beginning to match what he i
Has anyone seen data from a test of one of these devices that is generated
within a system that is totally isolated from outside power sources and
connections? I suppose that will require a battery of some type. Also, it
will gain much credibility if operated within a vacuum chamber which woul
Jed, is it possible to calculate the amount of power that is being added to the
water by looking at the system? I assume that the water is not moving just
prior to being accelerated to finally reach the speed that it is moving inside
the pipe. That may allow you to calculate the kinetic energy
Recently I have been modeling the HotCat in an effort to better understand the
dynamic operation of the device. After a number of attempts I was able to
construct a computer simulation that exhibits interesting characteristics.
There have always been questions concerning how a device that is dr
off the soap box!
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Nov 9, 2014 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN and NO Higggs Particle Nov 7 2014
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 10:07 AM, David Roberson wrote:
It has been my suspicion all along that these guys jumped
committee. Lets hope that they take a
lesson from history.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: H Veeder
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Nov 9, 2014 3:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:CERN and NO Higggs Particle Nov 7 2014
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It has been my
It has been my suspicion all along that these guys jumped to a conclusion much
too quickly. I thing of someone finding a 16 pound weight and announcing that
they have found a bowling ball. Until the true interactions of a particle are
established no one can be confident in what they find. Thi
to be stated.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
From: "David Roberson"
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:39:11 AM
> The quality of the stea
-)
From: "David Roberson"
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:19:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today
Notice that the system including a number of reactors working together is
similar to what I was describing in a posting yesterday. Pe
The quality of the steam is not that important provided a method to accurately
measure the amount of heat it contains is used. A COP of 11.07 is important
and represents a significant improvement above the earlier specification of
greater than 6. If you are concerned about the accuracy of the
Are you not amazed that a patent is issued for a device of this type and not
for one that claims cold fusion as the source of energy? What are the chances
that the inventors actually brought one of these systems to the patent office
to prove that it works?
It is very sad that our field is trea
Notice that the system including a number of reactors working together is
similar to what I was describing in a posting yesterday. Perhaps that is why
they decided to publish that information today.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2
I am wondering about one situation that has not been mentioned as far as I
recall. If you place several of the ECAT type devices within a high
temperature furnace then the surrounding temperature within the oven will be
applied to the ECAT directly. Now that should be enough temperature to ena
can use gas, why not use a self-feedback system.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:41 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Of course the COP=3 argument may not apply when a well designed ECAT is put
into service. My simulations suggest that the geometry of the device can be
adjusted to achieve a higher COP if requi
A COP of 3 is not accurate according to the specifications supplied by Rossi.
It is important not to assume that the lower limitation is firmly established
since thermal feedback can generally be used to increase that number
significantly. The main problem is to keep the device from going into
The problem is that you seem convinced that a COP of 3 is going to be the best
that Rossi can deliver. I do not believe that is an accurate assumption.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Blaze Spinnaker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Nov 5, 2014 11:12 am
Subject: [Vo]:Re: COP of 3 is a p
Of course the COP=3 argument may not apply when a well designed ECAT is put
into service. My simulations suggest that the geometry of the device can be
adjusted to achieve a higher COP if required. We need to realize that the
testing done by the scientists was not conducted in a manner that op
the simulations.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 2:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
BTW, David Roberson and I have corresponded with Barry Kort about the claim
that McKubre's measurements w
All indications are that the visible spectrum contains very little of the
energy being radiated so what we see can not be used to figure the radiated
power. Many other variables appear to get into the fray which forces us to
rely upon calibration if we are to achieve accurate accounting of the
o hear if the Vortex community thinks this experiment
would be valuable and if there are any other suggestions for a dummy test.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:36 PM, David Roberson wrote:
...
Now if we can only settle the temperature and radiated power questions from the
latest testing!
Dave
, Oct 28, 2014 12:34 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:questions on McKubre cells and AC component
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Since we are assuming a symmetrical AC waveform, this is a pretty good example
of that with numerous harmonics that also get into the act.
Is this a
erage voltage.
Thank you for taking the challenge, making me rethink, and putting me straight!
Regards, Bob
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:53 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Bob, I take that as a challenge. I am not offended my friend, but find this a
great opportunity to prove what I am saying is co
Consider that if you actually have a COP of 2 under a set of conditions, then
changing those conditions should allow for an increase in the COP. Better
insulation for the escape heat flow paths will cause an increase in the core
temperature. If the generated power increases with core temperat
0.25sin(wt)^2)) = (1A) sqrt(1+.25 (mean(.5 - .5cos(2wt
P = (1A) sqrt(1.125) = 1.0607 Watts
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:58 AM, David Roberson wrote:
The instantaneous power being delivered by the source is equal to the product
of the current and voltage. When the current is constant, only
The note from Kur is seriously in error. Dr. McKubre was entirely correct in
his assumptions about the constant current operation of his cells. As he
explained, the AC noise voltage variations average out over the long term and
do not contribute to the net input power calculations and hence en
riod until the error is no
longer a concern - at additional cost of the DAQ. Just like anything else, you
can usually buy more accuracy.
Bob
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:21 AM, David Roberson wrote:
If the internal current control feedback mechanism is slow to act, then the
output cur
ar
in his experiment and does not invalidate the results.
Bob
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:50 PM, David Roberson wrote:
The total instantaneous power into the system can be calculated by taking the
instantaneous source voltage and multiplying it by the instantaneous source
current. It does
The actual measurement that I am interesting in is the amount of power being
radiated and convected away from the device. If the effective temperature can
be manipulated by some process that results in less than expected power
emission, then we are being fooled. That is the root of my reservat
The total instantaneous power into the system can be calculated by taking the
instantaneous source voltage and multiplying it by the instantaneous source
current. It does not matter whether you want to call it AC or DC since this is
the total that is being delivered. There is no more, regardle
I doubt that this effect has anything to do with the latest ECAT measurements.
Unfortunately, it appears that measuring the spectral energy contained within
the IR range may not be directly associated with the amount of heat energy
being generated since a significant portion of the energy resid
This effect sounds like a form of heat pump. The energy is moved from one
location to another.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: H Veeder
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Oct 23, 2014 2:33 am
Subject: [Vo]:Negative Luminescence and the HotCat
From the wikipedia page on Negative Lumine
I interpreted his statement as saying that the SSM mode operates in a manner
such that one parameter appears to chase after the other. When not using SSM,
it is not possible to see this activity. That would imply that the same
reactor is capable of both types of operation.
The latest test ind
Jones, you are being unfair to Levi and the others. Putting together a
calorimetric system that the skeptics would accept as accurate would not be an
easy task.
I appreciate the work that these guys performed. There are shortcomings that
many have pointed out, but I suspect that this will alw
Harry
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:19 AM, David Roberson wrote:
I saw the photo of the block and of course it seems to be similar as well. I
am not convinced that the casting that was treated for 12 hours and quickly
removed had time to cool that much. I may be wrong, but the first refere
hour 1,200 °C (2,190 °F) heat treatment."
I recently took up pottery so I know that when the temperature is >1200 the
clay become less orange and more white.
Harry
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:37 AM, David Roberson wrote:
How do we reconcile that the color observed by people a
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 2:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Color Temperature
David Roberson wrote:
I found another entry relating to heat treating of metals. There is a picture
of a heat treated casting that states that it was just
-
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 1:57 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Color Temperature
David Roberson wrote:
Why would you expect the device to look white hot when a known metal casting
looks orange hot at approximately the same temperature? What am I missing?
I think
We have noticed that the large mounting rings at the ends of the HotCat do not
appear to glow in the same manner as seen on the smaller body of the device.
The testers measured the power being radiated and conducted from these rings
just as with the inner body and I decided to look into an inte
temperature.
An iron at 800C glows red but the peak emission is in the infrared .
harry
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Patrick Ellul wrote:
Hi Dave,
Jed refers to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence
Regards.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:38 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Take a look at
link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_treating
I certainly do not claim to be an expert in this subject area, but the evidence
points to the pictures from the experiment being somewhat reasonable.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Oct 18
But what about the conservation of energy? What mass is being depleted in
order to release the energy?
No one has ever shown proof that energy can appear out of nowhere and continue
to exist.
I suggest that the true source will be uncovered one day and it will be
associated with a depletion o
Take a look at the article in wikipedia about color temperature. Unless I am
reading it incorrectly the color expected for a source at 1700K is quite
orange. This is in line with what is reported in the latest test.
Could someone take a moment to explain to me why the device should not be
ora
This line of reasoning leads me to wonder if the mini explosions that some
think are occurring are able to sputter the fuel. In this scenario, the molten
mass is continually torn apart into small blobs that then cool into odd shapes
and sizes.
Is anything of this nature even remotely possible?
Meltdown might not be such a major concern with the latest design. If Rossi
and allies have optimized the geometry in such a manner as to extract heat
energy from the device faster than the core can produce it then thermal run
away should not occur. That suggests that some finite operating te
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
This is an excellent idea and I assume that the MFMP guys will perform the
experiment. Their results will be quite
This is an excellent idea and I assume that the MFMP guys will perform the
experiment. Their results will be quite revealing.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 11:33 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:new paper- help MFMP, please!
On Sat, Oct
We discussed that earlier as an alternative. At the time the operating
temperatures were quite a bit lower.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l
Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes a self feeding Hot Cat and ends the
cont
I believe that the record shows that an ECAT went into thermal run away in the
earlier testing by the scientists. Is that not adequate to prove the point?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: jwinter
To: vortex-l
Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why doesn't Rossi makes
James, we expect you to share your new wealth with the rest of us. :-)
Dave
-Original Message-
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l
Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 10:03 pm
Subject: [Vo]:$10,000 bet against cold fusion on /.
Bruce Perens just bet me 10,000 to one odds that "no credible comme
I have run a number of simulations on my ECAT model and have found a simple
rule of thumb that Rossi or others wanting to replicate his design can use to
ensure stable operation. It is possible to violate the rule during a
fractional time period when a carefully designed PWM drive is utilized
Well...guess your body is a much better generator of heat than the sun. I
don't recall where I read that they were close, but your figures suggest that
the sun is no match.
The ratio that you found may imply that I should have said a dead body!
Dave
-Original Message-
From: m
temperatures and more efficient operation in any connected
electrical production system.
IMHO NASA should take notice to this discussion to improve their thermoelectric
space probe energy sources.
Bob Cook
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l
Interesting point Eric. The materials needed to build an ECAT are in enormous
quantities within the Earth. A small reaction here, another there, and so on
can add up to a tremendous effect when considering the entire world.
To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy be
assumption that the temperature of the vapor (maybe plasma) was fairly uniform
within the reactor vessel (alumina containment).
It may be that the isotopes of Ni below 62 were indeed depleted and not seen in
the ash.
Bob Cook
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To
am not sure how much of this heat contributes to the global temperature.
Harry
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Roberson wrote:
A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements
and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the
Bob, how would we explain the appearance of the ash material that was extracted
from the tube? According to the testers the device can operate at higher
powers than they experienced which would certainly lead to complete melting of
the nickel. What are the chances that some of the other mater
Jones-please continue to speculate about new thoughts as that is our best
method of getting to the truth. I get a bit concerned when I hear you speak
of scams. You apparently have drawn that conclusion at this point due to the
isotope measurements and that is certainly strange. But, have you
more uniformly heated in the face of chaotic LENR
occurring inside the reactor and would help avoid hot spots.
Bob
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:13 AM, David Roberson wrote:
The three phase connection is not too surprising if we assume that many more of
these units are to be mounted in a
:13 PM, David Roberson wrote:
The three phase connection is not too surprising if we assume that many more of
these units are to be mounted in a complete system. It would be extra work for
Rossi to construct a new device using only one phase for the scientists to
measure. I give him a pass on
A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements
and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same
general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth
and the greenhouse gas process?
We assume that the Earth
Jones, what you write here is pure speculation. I share some concerns about
the temperature measurements and how they might influence the output power, but
there is certainly no serious evidence that Rossi was able to impact the
testing in a serious manner.
Why do you continue to suggest a sca
e
power meters were known to have a max frequency threshold then could this allow
you to deliver more power without it being easily spotted?
On 16 October 2014 16:12, David Roberson wrote:
Sorry Robert, I will make every attempt to use your correct name in the future.
Thanks for clarify
f if he wasn't persisting in his school-boy
intrigues.
On 16 October 2014 12:25, David Roberson wrote:
Bob, you appear to be too convinced that the gain is unity and are going to
great lengths to obtain that result. The testers are well respected scientists
and no one should assume that
I have a strong suspicion that the path of maximum heat transfer needs to be
via radiation in order for the device to be stable. This is due to the forth
order with temperature being able to win against a lower order power generation
process.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eri
s are required.
Harry
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:08 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is
being generated within the core.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda
To: Vortex List
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:
Bob, you appear to be too convinced that the gain is unity and are going to
great lengths to obtain that result. The testers are well respected scientists
and no one should assume that they are so easily misslead. Besides, there are
several measurements that support the fact that the COP is gr
We may eventually come to the conclusion that the nickel can produce power even
in the molten form. That seems to be what is implied. Is there reason to
assume that molten nickel can not work? A higher temperature might enhance the
process that is not well understood at the moment.
I have
caps
and the E-Cat body. The caps are not incandescent, so there does not appear to
be any transparency issue there. The Delta T/Watt is nearly the same despite
an increase in input power of ~100W. You would expect it to be significantly
lower.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:08 PM, David
You have a good understanding in my opinion. There is no doubt that energy is
being generated within the core.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda
To: Vortex List
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat : Minimum COP assuming worst mistakes possible
They state that the device operates at many millions of degrees so it does not
make sense to discuss deuterium atoms. Ions are all that exist at that
temperature.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l
Sent: Wed, Oct 15, 2014 12:18 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Lockhe
Your conclusion that there is no gain is incorrect. If that were the
situation, the behavior that the testers witnessed with increasing temperature
could not have happened. I do not know how much gain was actually present due
to some of the questions that remain about the true temperature, but
The fact that the 100 watt input power increase yielded a calculated(and
assumed) output power increase of 700 watts does indeed prove that the COP is
greater than unity. My model shows that this is the general behavior that is
expected from any device that has internally generated power. I h
be melted unless some LENR miracle is preventing it.
See my tread Super-fluidic heat flow for tomclarks analysis.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:24 AM, David Roberson wrote:
That seems to be the best explanation that is derived from my model. Stable
operation of the HotCat is achieved when
501 - 600 of 2818 matches
Mail list logo
