The self sustaining mode that we refer to is generally considered a positive feedback system. Unfortunately, when the gain becomes infinity the output becomes unstable. In that case, it is either rising toward some high temperature point that eventually reaches a stop or falling back toward low temperature which would not further our cause very much. The high point might actually damage the device and stop the LENR effects.
I would rather have the device exhibit a modest stable gain instead. Perhaps a carefully adjusted quantity of insulation will achieve this goal with a bit of difficulty. Rossi is always in a battle with this issue and is trapped with a COP of 6. from which he has trouble escaping. Celani might have to settle with a final value of 3 or so to achieve a long lasting demonstration. Only a carefully constructed experiment can determine the optimum stable gain. With a modest gain one would think that the skeptics could be convinced if the calorimetry is adequate and a third party confirms the results. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Akira Shirakawa <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Aug 21, 2012 7:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:What a self-sustaining demonstration by Celani might accomplish On 2012-08-22 00:06, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I do not know what a "mostly" self-sustaining mode would be. A fully > self-sustaining run lasting more than 10 minutes with no temperature > decline would be irrefutable proof that the effect is real, and > anomalous. There is less than a gram of wire in the cell plus hydrogen > gas. There is no doubt the heat originates at the wire. There are no > chemical changes to any of the materials in the cell. So once you > eliminate all doubts about the calorimetry, by making it self-sustain, > any measurable amount of heat is anomalous. By "mostly" I mean that over a relatively long time (for example one week as proposed) the reaction might for a reason or another (it's yet unexplained after all) still need some energy input from time to time to sustain itself at high temperatures. That would be perfectly acceptable if it's only a fraction of the measured output energy, especially if the difference is well beyond possible error margins. > He plans to let it run for a week or more. That is thousands of times > longer than you need to make the case. Why not go for thousands? -- good > idea. A very good idea. Better avoid giving room for skepticism when possible and especially when it's very easy to do so. By the way, I think reasonably negative skeptics will accept potentially inaccurate calorimetry as long as the output/input signal is very clear and can't be reasonably explained by measurement errors anymore. > If Celani can make it self sustain, this will be as conclusive and > irrefutable as the Fleischmann and Pons boil off experiments of 1992, > which produced massive heat after death. It was easily measured and far > beyond the limits of chemistry. See: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf I didn't know of this. After quickly skimming over it, surely excess heat seems to be quite clear. I imagine there could have been criticisms to the water phase change (as with Rossi) or that since F&P performed the experiment, this report couldn't possibly be considered independent. [snip...]
