Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: This is most interesting in light of the totality of past experiments in > LENR which are “believable” going back twenty years.**** > > ** ** > > There seems to be excellent evidence for long-term COP of over one but > less than two . . . >
The term "COP" has no meaning in the context of a cold fusion experiment. Output power is not -- in any way -- contingent upon or dependent upon input. Input is not amplified or transformed in any sense. Input can easily be turned off and output continues, with a COP of infinity. This is true of all cold fusion experiments and it has been been observed by just about every researcher I know. The only reason there is any input power in a cold fusion experiment is to form the hydride, and to keep it from de-gassing and unforming itself. In gas loading and other systems, no input power is needed. The ratio of input to output can easily be changed by altering the physical shape of the anode or cathode, or the distance between them. The techniques are trivial, and known to any electrochemist. The ratio is not optimized because that would interfere with other aspects of the experiment. Once we learn to control the reaction it will easily be adjusted to any number we want. Attempts to optimize it now are a waste of time. All discussions of this ratio, and the so-called COP, are a waste of time in my opinion. - Jed
