David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why do you say the ratio is 6? > > This is Rossi's claim on every question that has been posed to him. If > you read his blog, you will see that he only guarantees an output to input > ratio of 6 to 1 and never more. > I meant that other people have achieved higher ratios, including Defkalion and several others working with Pd-D. Rossi may not have. I am sure that higher ratios are possible. > He has never suggested that self sustaining is a reliable mode of > operation for very extended periods. > On the contrary, he says it is unstable. Even if that is true, if you let it self sustain for hours at a time with occasional use of control current, the overall ratio should be much higher than 1:6. > I tend to agree with you that it should be an engineering problem to reach > higher ratios but his own claims must trump our speculation. > His claims only apply to his cells. Other people have done much better than 1:6. > Rossi does not claim self sustaining operation for extended periods of > time. That is something we are assuming. > I believe he said it can self sustain for about 6 hours. It went 4 hours in the demo. > We must consider that Rossi appears to be in a battle with thermal runaway > at this point in his engineering development, hence the lower gain. > I believe he said something like that. > Unfortunately, I have seen some well designed simulations on the web that > have included internally stored energy being released for a long period of > time that can not be totally dismissed. > They can be totally dismissed. It is not possible to store energy and release it with a passive device and not have the temperature fall monotonically. That would violate the second law. You can see from the data that it did not fall. It rose at times. You can see from the photos of the inside of the device that it is passive; there are no mechanical baffles, pumps or any other physical mechanism that would allow the heat release to be controlled or increased. - Jed
