> From: "Duncan Cumming" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:53:45 PM >
> A few days of self sustaining running (cooling only without > electrical input) would be pretty convincing. Use electrical heaters > only for starting the reaction. I think it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the eCat operates in a narrow band of stability. (See the November melt-down, for example). Lewan's "self-running" test showed a peak and then a decay -- and certainly wouldn't have lasted "a few days". Make the peak too high, and you've lost control. Rossi has apparently found a way of controlling the reaction, in a range up to COP=6, by stimulating the reaction in a series of rise-and-decay bursts. Siegel on http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/ demands a closed-loop test. But with a COP of 6, how are you going to get the feedback? (Turbines are being tested, but not yet formally announced). So ... you're left with thermoelectric, at what .. 10% efficiency? So to prove the "impossible" eCat you have to violate the laws of thermodynamics. The gas-fired eCat is still a mystery. In addition to the thermal input, does it still need "pulses" or "waveforms?" In my opinion, we're left with either wiring fakes (eg coax, or double-running wires to hide the current), or DC. DC can, and should have been checked, on the input lines. Preferably with in-line resistors, rather than current loops. Both of these (wiring or other power fakes) are easily eliminated by using a motor generator. Heck, even COAL plants take their control energy from the Grid.
