Thanks, Cousin for mentioning my opinion. A large reaction is good: a) because it is a promise of technological usefulness, b) it helps you to NOT waste creativity on sophisticated measurement-as calorimetry, saves you from metrologomania.
I don't understand the problem of signal/noise in this case;why should the relative noise increase with intensity of the reaction. But I don't know if you cite Ed exactly. Intensity of reaction is a "sine qua non" condition of an energy source; the others are: -reproducibility and controllability (what we reproduce, do we reproduce it quantitatively enough?) Reproducibility is not abstract is pragmatic concept. - continuity - months of functioning without decay of the above criteria, - upscalability (The E-cat makes this in a rather strange way from the point of view of engineering-coupling of many units.) One great question is- how much of what we learn from the successful Ni based LENR can be used for the Pd D based LENR? One song of Nature or two different songs? Where I absolutely disagree with Ed is that he does not believe that the polar impurities of air are crippling all the CF systems because thede are catalytic and sensitive, while I am convinced of it. On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dennis wrote: > > I am still no where near Rossi's 10Kw/100g Ni =100W/gm. I am still >> lucky to see 0.5 W/g on a good day. >> > > Okay, so can you try 200 g to get ~100 W? Or would that much material be > too expensive? Would it not fit into your cell? > > I think it would be valuable to demonstrate a 100 W reaction. It would > demonstrate that in principle the thing can be scaled up, which indicates > that Rossi is right. Since you do not know Rossi's formula and it is > unlikely you can hit it by random attempts, this would also indicate there > may be more than one valid formula. It could be that a variety of Ni alloys > work. > > As Peter Gluck often points out, a large reaction has value in its own > right, just because it is large. I would rate anything above 10 W as > "large." > > I think Ed Storms disagrees with Gluck. He says with a larger reaction you > only amplify the noise along with the signal. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
