The input is not directly transformed into output but you must initially apply heat of some type to coax Rossi's ECAT to put out excess heat energy. It does nothing until the heat input occurs and after that the amount of heat generated depends upon the internal temperature. What controls does he have to make a useful system? As far as I can determine, his only input is resistive heating and the output heat is directed to the coolant or radiated to some point. He must be able to turn off the device in some manner and it is evident that cutting the drive power is the way he does it.
Rossi has never demonstrated in public an ECAT that is truly self sustaining. The internal temperature has always dropped toward room in his experiments. The famous October test of last year did not continue at the maximum power output for very long (less than an hour if I recall) and certainly not forever. Furthermore, Rossi has stated on more occasions than I can count that his device will not have a COP specification of greater than 6 if it is controlled and useful. Read his journal if you question this statement; it is very clearly posted many times to different persons. There are other systems that behave in different manners, such as the DGT device, where they achieve control by effectively starving the thing of fuel. And I am not sure any of the electrolysis mechanisms are controlled that exhibit significant amounts of output power. Could you direct me to any of these devices that put out heat energy that is at least 2 times the input energy and can be turned on and off? If these devices only put out low quality heat, then COP might not be useful in describing them. The entire concept of controlled constant self sustaining power output is a fallacy. Constant output devices typically employ negative feedback to achieve stability. The open loop gain determines how closely the output matches the input. Rossi type LENR devices put out additional heat energy as the temperature rises which is a recipe for instability. This constitutes positive feedback and it comes in handy if your goal is to get plenty of output with a minimum of input power. The catch is that the internally generated heat can supply all the drive needed once it reaches a critical level. If that occurs you are on your way toward a latching point where most attempts on your part to lower the drive power for control are over ruled. If a system reaches an operating point that is controlled by positive feedback as in Rossi's case, there is no standing still allowed. These types of devices are balanced on a razors edge at the self sustaining point and the slightest noise will send it off in one of two directions. The only place they will not remain is at the self sustaining point. Rossi has made it quite clear that his devices attempt to thermally run away which is associated with the positive feedback operation. So, if Rossi wants to have a useful device that is controlled he is required to supply modulated input power to achieve that function. Clearly the less input required, the better from an efficiency point of view. So, it makes perfect sense to attempt to optimize the device at the largest controlled value of COP that he can safely handle. He is no fool, and he realizes that the input power required is not a good thing and thus would love to reduce it. This is not as easy as some think. I want to mention again that Rossi could use controlled cooling in conjunction with his controlled heating to gain additional control, but thus far this has not been seen in his public displays. The magic word is control. COP and control are bound together in a Rossi type device. Jed, you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. Some of us are convinced that COP in Rossi's device is important, including him. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Sep 22, 2012 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: This is most interestingin light of the totality of past experiments in LENR which are “believable”going back twenty years. There seems to beexcellent 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
