Re: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance

[Energy Liberator]

Thanks for the explanation. I knew DGT were using a heat transfer fluid but didn't realise they were preheating it to assist with the start up. "...The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of “quiescence”. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity)..." Is this problem of "quiescence" verified or something you been informed of? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere. One would think Rossi would monitor what DGT are up to and see if he can learn anything but he seems completely convinced they have nothing or at least publicly that is the impression he is giving. He could learn a few engineering tips just by looking at the Hyperion spec sheet. I think Rossi may be hurting from the whole DGT affair and through blind spite is dismissing everything relating to DGT. Just to be clear, I'm not a sceptic. I actually believe Rossi and DGT have something but I'm keeping my feet firmly planted and will question things that don't seem to add up. On 24/01/12 16:22, Jones Beene wrote: From:Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat …     You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water.   One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is mollified.   On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the threshold for startup.   With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently.   Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a “temperature inversion” in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple – let’s say it is 6*(X).   Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) – that is: until recently when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on this bit of delay in publication.   Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They are both right and wrong.   They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady gain is part of the larger problem of “quiescence”. The active material goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation for that oddity).   Get it?   I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that this need for some kind of “forced continuity” (or stable input power) is indeed reconcilable with strong gain.   It is part of the process and it is new physics. You will not find much on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if there are continuing doubts.   Jones