Thank you, Abd! We have to wait anyway till we know Melvin's results. However, based on my long experience in the field I think that the cathodes belong to three categories or castes - inactive, talented (10- 30% heat excess) and geniuses (say 500& excess or more)
I have never met an example of converting an inactive cathode in a talented one, or a cathode in a genius by exploring the parameter space. Cathodes are born not made, cannot be educated - their maximum performanves are an issue of kismet, or of technological genetics. I would be enchanted if you or other colleagues could contradict me with real life examples. This has lead me to the idea that actually cathodes are deadly poisoned, poisoned in part and protected against poisoning by some lucky and rare event. On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 02:07 AM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> This leads to a question: >> What is better? >> >> a) 6 times~ 10% heat excess >> b) 2 times 500% heat excess, 4 times...no heat excess >> >> Taking in account that 10% is a scientific curiosity, 500% is of >> technological interest. >> By the way, what are the performances of Melvin Miles' system? >> >> Thank you for any opinion/information. >> peter >> > > The more reliable result is more interesting. I recommend listening to > Hagelstein's comments in that press conference. He talked about parameter > space. When results aren't reliable, exploring the parameter space is very > difficult, and then optimization is very difficult. > > Suppose we have a product using the (b) technology. One time out of three > it produces 500% energy, the other two it's a dud. Could you sell this > product? Maybe. If you could make these cells very small, you could make a > product with hundreds of them in it, and then get 133% heat excess. Probably > not good enough, though, unless it is very cheap. (Improved Efficiency Hot > Water Heater). > > 10% heat excess, if it's reliable, can then be explored, one step at a > time, one parameter at a time, in controlled experiments building up a > knowledge of the parameter space. It can be optimized and through this it > may be possible to improve the yield. Maybe improve it a lot. Maybe even > improve it to 400% excess. > > An additional problem is that when results aren't reliable, theoretical > exploration and testing is very difficult as well. > > Miles is on the right track. I didn't go down the excess heat path in my > kit design, because calorimetry was difficult and expensive, I was told. He > might be changing that. But I'm eager to see his results. > >
