I am not sure I would call the demonstration fake just because a trick is used to enhance the apparent performance. The main observation I received from the show was that Rossi's device appears to generate significant excess energy as a result of LENR. That is where the meat is.
I have another post pending where I explain the temperature behavior of the Rossi core. The data supplied by Rossi does not in any way prove that the core does anything but exponentially drop in temperature. I will deal with the facts when they are honest, but refuse to accept deception. Maybe you should ask why Rossi denied that he had a pressure dropping device hidden within the output port during that demonstration even after it was pointed out. The laws of thermodynamics are not violated if the core cools down monotonically and a simple trick modifies the behavior elsewhere within the device. You should give serious consideration to my theory of what transpired in October. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi: Neutrons? : COP200, Linearity David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Running a device for 4 hours as it cools off is not self sustaining. This is wrong for two reasons: 1. It did not cool off. It got hotter, then cooler, than hotter again, before finally cooling. This proves there was some source of energy in the cell. That is fundamental to the laws of thermodynamics. 2. The cooling curves show that it cools to room temperature in about a half hour. Those are the facts of the matter. You need to deal with them. Do not say "it cools off" when in fact it got hotter. If you think Rossi is dishonest and these results are fake, that would be a valid reason for you to ignore them, but you should not make assertions that are contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. That is not a valid scientific argument. Unless you assert those laws are incorrect. Self sustaining suggests that it will continue indefinitely . . . That is incorrect. Mizuno's device self-sustained for several days but eventually the reaction quenched itself. Obviously, there is enough fuel in the system to let it run for centuries or thousands of years, but some mechanism within it prevents that. Still, it is self-sustaining. Can you show me any document where he suggests that the COP is not limited to approximately 6? Rossi's assertions are not the issue here. I can show you lots of documents showing that cold fusion cells run without input power, both Pd and Ni cells. Also, the engineering definition of COP has nothing to do with external heating power, and it cannot be altered by improving insulation, as Celani has done recently, and as Mizuno did in his Ni studies. Maybe it is a good time to define what the phrase self sustaining means. My definition of this term is that a device that exhibits this mode will continue indefinitely to put out the same amount of heat without any input power required to drive it after initial ignition. Perhaps you do not agree with this definition? "Indefinitely" should not be part of it, since these systems tend to stop for unknown reasons, as Mizuno's did. I would stick to Fleischmann's definition, which is that the system runs far longer than it would with any chemical source of fuel. In Rossi's case, it not only ran without input, it got hotter, which proves there was some source of input. Also, we must choose a minimum time frame during which this constant power is generated if we are to ensure that stored heat or chemical heating is not the source of the energy. That's easy. Just use rocket fuel as your baseline. In a closed cell the fuel has to to include the oxygen, as rocket fuel does. You also have to have a delivery system, or the cell will explode. Needless to say, there is no delivery system or rocket fuel or any other fuel in Rossi's device. A few hours is far too short of a period if we are serious. No it isn't too short. Not if you confirm there is no rocket fuel or any other chemical fuel in the cell, in amounts large enough to be seen with the naked eye. A mass of chemical fuel large enough to produce this much heat is macroscopic. You can easily see it. And, in the case of Rossi's demonstration, the temperature of the device was drifting downward and not steady throughout the test. No, it was increasing. The increase is readily apparent. The only way it could be false is if the demonstration was fake. - Jed
