I wouldn't evn take more output heat as input heat as the sine qua non. In fact
there's nothing going on in the e-cat that can proove cold fusion- its not
about a cold fusion "proof", there just isn't one of those contemplated. If you
want CF proof maybe look at the Navy's data.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Leguillon
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
I think that you're misunderstanding me. If-And-Only-If the power at the
secondary is LESS than the peak power input to the primary, there will be
arguments about the "heat after death" or "self-sustaining" operation.
If the most energy that you put into the E-Cat is 1 kW, and 2 kW is observed
at the output, then the H.A.D. operation is totally unnecessary, but may
impress some people.
However, if you put 1 kW into the input for two hours, seeing a slow
build-to-parity at the secondary (where the secondary only achieves 1 kW), then
how long the heat takes to decay when power is removed will be a bone of
contention.
I think H.A.D. could serve as a distraction. What we HAVE TO SEE is more kW
at the secondary than is ever applied to the primary.
Was that cogent? This was the prediction I'd supplied yesterday - that power
gains would be reliant on the "no input" mode of operation, less than the peak
power applied at the primary. And this would leave people arguing over
residual, or stored, heat vs. a maintained reaction.
I truly hope that they are observing 3kW out, and less than 10 Amps peak
power consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:58:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
We can only hope and pray that there is more power observed on the
secondary than is supplied to the primary during peak energy application.
If gains are only observed during "heat after death", we will be arguing
the results ad infinitum.
Why do you say that?!? It is much easier to be sure the heat is real when
there is no input power. It is much more definitive, not less.
What you say makes no sense to me. Please explain.
- Jed
