Jones-- The agreement between Rossi and IH specifies that acceptable results would be a COP of 4 to 6 (NOT 6) as I read the document.
Further more Rossi frequently indicated that the reactor at the customer was in a self-sustaining mode which may have meant that the COP was quite high--50 as suggested. The power output would still only have been at the Megawatt the plant could properly handle, with the cooling system--pumps etc--still requiring a small amount of electrical input. Rossi has always suggested that there was some control, not necessarily the thermal heating of the fuel initially, that allowed shutting off the reactor or reducing its output. I worked with the design of fission nuclear plants thermal hydraulic systems for many years, and many of those reactor power plants had a COP of infinity. They took no input power to operate. What Rossi claims makes a lot of sense to me. And fooling the oversight folks, there were three, in the initial test of the 10kW module plant in Rossi's plant in Italy would be hard to do IMHO. I do not think I could have been fooled, and I have never had a professional license, nor a PHd behind my name. Bob Cook From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:25:30 -0700 RE: [Vo]:Next Big Future - goes out on a limb From: Jack Cole Thanks Dave. I would love to see a solid report. I still have no alternative explanation for some of the early results I saw in my own experiments, but the lack of reproducibility makes me suspect that I missed some unknown error. I just have trouble believing that Rossi would send a lawsuit to IH rather than even one of his old supposedly working 10KW units if he had anything that worked reliably! I think 100M dollars is worth a week in NC demonstrating to anyone at IH how to make it work. Jack, Good post and let me fill in a few of the gaps, since the devil is in the details and the scam becomes crystal clear when all the details are all presented together. First - There is no doubt in my mind that Rossi can show anomalous thermal gain. It has been done with Ni-H for 25 years, starting with Piantelli and Thermacore. Second – This disagreement is not just about showing an energy anomaly – and making it run reliably. To get the 100 million, according to the contract, Rossi has to demonstrate an astounding COP of 6. That has never been done reliably and would be the breakthrough, if true. All of us who have been around this field are convinced, that with a properly done experiment COP of about 1.5 is doable – even old had. Thermacore, one the top companies in thermal engineering - ran multiple reactors for over a year at COP 1.5 average in the nineties - and their proof was overwhelming… but despite all efforts, they could not make the gain go higher than 1.5 and fossil fuel was cheap then. Rossi can do the normal Ni-H version, we must assume, and get COP 1.5. If he is good, he may have pushed the gain to COP ~2-3. That would be admittedly a valuable advance, but falls short of the big bucks in the contract. The reason that Rossi and his stooges are dishonest here, and have resorted to using the air-for-steam cheat which Goat-Guy discovered - is that AR has to make the gain seem much higher than it is to get the big bucks. He cannot do that without cheating – apparently, or otherwise there is no reason not to demonstrate this to real third party expert. When IH’s pleadings arrive, and it will probably take a few weeks perhaps – this is most likely what they will say. They may even ask that the court appoint an expert to do independent testing – and this should please everyone … except a cheater.
