Jones, Jack needs to find some way to increase the COP if anyone is to have great confidence in his experiment. As you point out, a real COP of 1.1 above chemical effects is as valid as one of 2.5 provided it can be easily proven to exist. That proof is where the problem lies.
It will be much better if and when Jack finds a method of raising the COP of his system and before that we should stand by. Why for example, can he not adjust the amount of fuel charge inside his device to verify that more energy is generated as more fuel is subjected to the same temperatures? Any question concerning volume changes can be addressed by adding inert materials to displace the lower gas quantities, etc. This should be done as a sanity check as a matter of good science. So, lets not become sidetracked by low COP too early in the game. That would not be a wise decision. A COP of 2 or more should be the goal. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Jan 27, 2015 12:27 pm Subject: [Vo]:Jack Cole improvement in LiOH design Jack Cole continues to improve his prior results, based on a simplified Rossi/Parkhomov alumina tube reactor - with the aim of finding a safe and reliable “baseline” experiment which almost anyone can pull off, even a physics professor, in order to see thermal gain greater than chemical. http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/01/27/replication-nilioh-excess-heat-results/ Please note: 1) Yes, Jack’s experiment is low gain (COP~ 1.1) for now, and has no frills, but it is simple and SAFE and does not require large power input (although larger input is being considered) 2) LAH is a dangerous reactant and only skilled experimenters with a glove box should even think about it 3) This experiment is now looking repeatable, and given that it is safer, since there is no LAH, hopefully it will be replicated by many, or else someone will discover where the experimental error lies and why control-run calibrated thermometry (as in Lugano) can’t be trusted. (note: everyone agrees that this should move to precision calorimetry eventually, once the gain is improved). 4) Please do not be overly critical of low budget efforts where the gain is based on calibration against a dummy reactor. Not everyone can afford foolproof calorimetry, but anyone can make small cumulative advances to a common theme, if the underlying experiment is safe enough and inexpensive. 5) In fact, Cole’s technique is similar but better performed than the Lugano report, since he did use calibrated thermocouples which Levi failed to do. 6) Since the resistance wire is internal the experiment cannot reach temperatures in excess of say 1000C but lower temperature will show thermal gain. But this makes the experiment much simpler. 7) In principle, COP of 1.1 is no less AMAZING than COP 2.5, if the gain is above chemical, since both are arguably outside the laws of normal thermodynamics. Jones
