Thanks for posting Jones. Very interesting. I would indeed enjoy more exploration of COP, which is both misunderstood or misapplied, which I too am guilty of. I've heard David French's explanation for why certain criteria need to be met to meet "commercial viability", but your thinking process augments that I think.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > After reading some comments about AR and about COP and what level is needed > for commercialization, on E-Cat World, it seems that there is some > misunderstanding circulating on the subject of minimal COP - and its > application to the Rossi effect. > > Basically, the overriding consideration about COP is this: Are we talking > about the requirement for a heat trigger only, or is an electrical trigger > required for application of "something" more than heat (such as a small > amount magnetism or an electric field) ? > > If heat alone triggers the Rossi effect, then COP of 2 or even less than 2 > is useful. If electricity is required, then it is a different story. Rossi > has stated that heat alone is the trigger. Do we believe him? In fact, > Rossi > said that he was working on a natural gas fired trigger - which seems odd. > It seems odd, because if heat alone is adequate, then who cares what the > trigger for the first few units in a multi-reactor scheme is? Heck, even a > wood-fired stove would suffice on the first round of a multi-unit array :-) > > Of course, over the years, many have learned to distrust these kinds of > pronouncements from Rossi. However, > if they are valid and one considers doubling time and the "rule of seventy" > then a good argument can be made for the proposition that a COP of 1.7 or > even lower, is useful with heat triggering, since the doubling time can be > bootstrapped. This is the rationale behind the "BigBlueBox" which is the > so-called megawatt unit that looks more like 100 kW or less. > > It can be shown that with thermal triggering - and an E-Cat COP of only > about 1.7, even with some losses due to plumbing, the first 3 reactors > powered by natural gas can start two more, which can start a third, so that > even with COP significantly less than 2 we can double net thermal energy of > NG by bootstrapping in three stages. > > With COP of slightly over 2, we can start to use the excess energy (over > doubling) in feedback looping - going all the way back to the starting > demands of the initial stage, and it does not require too many actual units > to convert that modest gain of say 2.4 - all the way to what can be called > infinite COP (no input required after startup) in a bootstrapping scheme, > such as we find in BBB. Think about that: infinite COP. This is part of > Rossi's inspired madness and why he is so insistent on sticking with the > big > box. > > Bottom line, if we believe Rossi and the thermal trigger - COP of 1.7 is > useful, 2 is fabulous, and 2.5 is mind-boggling (infinite COP with > bootstrapping). > > Nevertheless, I must admit that I do not believe Rossi on this point - and > think that something more than thermal input is required. But I would love > to be wrong on that assessment. > > >
