Jones you are disregarding DGT's latest results as well as those of Rossi with your low COP claim. Rossi insists that he can obtain a COP of 6 and DGT was recently tested in a simple system to deliver a 3 if I recall.
I realize that we have not been given verifiable independent data to confirm their performance, but there has been a lot of leakage to various people suggesting at least these levels of performance. If you make the assumption that the active material temperature is the driving force behind the excess heat, then all one needs do is obtain better insulation of the core. This extra insulation will surely force the temperature to increase at a given level of internal heat generation which will eventually lead to thermal run away when enough insulation is applied. Once the internal temperature of the core reaches a critical level, there is no need to supply extra input power so the COP by definition reaches infinity. You can argue that the device is basically out of control if it reaches thermal run away so that is why Rossi always applies drive power at a duty cycle to prevent reaching the critical temperature. DGT appears to use a form of fuel limiting with their ionization technique which is different than Rossi, but seems to be effective for control. So, the 1<COP<2 limit is not enforced by any design rule and can be exceeded. Stability is somewhat dependent upon low COP unless excellent technique is employed to control the internal device temperature or fuel supply. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Nov 9, 2012 8:34 pm Subject: [Vo]:The new normal Curious observation - funny in a sardonic way, but not completely humorous - and it can be called the "new normal". To cut to the chase, the new normal is 1>COP<2 but non-nuclear (supra-chemical). To be explained. What do Ni-H experiments with potassium (or another spillover catalyst like constantan), from all of these researchers have in common: 1) Thermacore 2) Mills 3) Niedra 4) Noninski 5) Haldeman (MIT) 6) Focardi 7) Celani 8) Piantelli 9) Ahern 10) Kitamura 11) Takahashi 12) And approximately 2 dozen others Answer: gain, but LOW gain - and remarkably consistent long -term low-gain. In other words, the new normal. To wit: NASA paper worth a re-read, despite its age: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NiedraJMreplicatio.pdf Essentially - what we suspect with pretty good certainty is that K2CO3 and nickel work for reliable gain in an electrolytic or gas-phase system, but it is always 1>COP<2. There are documented systems running for over a year at this level. Recent results with zeolites are turning up something similar. Everything anomalous in energy needs to be compared with "chemical energy" to see if there is a mundane explanation. But the subject is more complex than it may seem if one is basing expectations on the "heat of combustion." We went through many versions of this with the original Rossi experiment 22 months ago. It is easier to eliminate chemical contributions when a reactor is sealed, since we have a maximum volume or reactants which cannot change. However, reality is seldom that simple. In the case of a sealed reactor, we have what is similar to a battery, in that only electrical energy goes in, but heat -instead of electricity- comes out, and there could be relativistic effects from reversible redox reactions - turning "chemistry" into "supra-chemistry". No one could ever completely eliminate the suprachemisty possibility from Rossi's original "percolator" since it was clearly gainful, but not even close to what he was claiming due to the dry steam fiasco. Bottom line: it is looking like the new normal for "chemistry" is what was formerly 1>COP<2 and is not nuclear and not chemical - thus it can be called suprachemical. But no one is sure what how far you can go with rock solid COP of 1.5 ... in terms of a commercial item... Essentially that is Gibbs' point, no? Jones
