“Recalescence” is very important in
understanding the Rossi effect, so I have removed typos and added to a
previous posting - in order to have this post indexed in the archive.
From: a former commentator
First, the fact that this *source* of energy
is thousands of times more dense than chemical yet it still has to be
plugged in (to a high power line, no less) will turn most observers away.
It is not necessarily true that “most” observers will be
turned away - only those whose ability to deduce and extrapolate from known
physics is severely challenged.
For instance, an atomic bomb is initiated by a chemical
explosion, and it is thousands of time more energy-dense than its trigger. A
hydrogen bomb is initiated by an atomic bomb, and it is much more energy
dense. ICF or inertial confinement fusion is triggered by a beam line, but
hopefully there is net excess energy available, even if it can never be cost
effective.
LENR will certainly be at the same level of paradigm shift –
or greater. Many observers do not have much difficulty extrapolating from a
known phenomenon into another kind of related reaction, especially if
mass-to-energy conversion is also present. The new phenomenon in this case
will be ongoing instead one-time- but still requiring a substantial trigger
event.
How difficult is that extrapolation? Grade school level.
If one understands “recalescence” and can extrapolate it
into a reaction which is cycled around the phase-change in a continuing
manner, then the rationale of “adding energy to gain energy” is almost
obvious.
Recalescence is an apparent thermal anomaly seen every day
in a steel mill. It is a sudden and sometimes drastic increase in
temperature that occurs while metal is cooling. It can appear to be a
violation of conservation of energy but it is not. And of course,
recalescence is a one-time phenomenon in a net-cooling cycle, so there is no
violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The energy of phase change is
latent and often surprising.
However, there would be a real anomaly if the phenomenon
were sequentially repeated using a “thermal ratcheting” technique to the
extent that the source of mass-to-energy conversion can be identified. Next,
to complete the explanation - we will need to demonstrate how mass is
converted into energy with nickel-hydrogen specifically - in a order to
change a one-time recalescence event into a succession of events which
happen around the phase-change and depend on adding energy to get net
energy.
This can be answered tentatively - and there are numerous
theories for gain, none of which predominates at present. Most of them
involve conversion of mass to energy, and many predict a novel kind of
nuclear reaction; so that, in the end, the Rossi effect is not too different
from the metaphor of the A-bomb or ICF in requiring energy to achieve most
energy.
Rossi recognized the dynamics of the base-level phenomenon
by labeling the reactor ECat – or energy catalyzer, and not HCat or hydrogen
catalyzer…since it requires trigger energy to produce more net energy than
the trigger. That would be true even if ECat can indeed operate in an
infinite COP regime.
Rossi says this infinite COP mode is possible, but there is
adequate reason to be skeptical of operation without any energy input,
unless the trigger derives from multiple Ecats operating together in a
situation where one triggers the other.
This lingering confusion over his pronouncements is
emblematic of the Rossi-problem. He has stumbled onto something that he does
not fully understand, and he continually makes optimistic pronouncements
that he cannot prove. He is a quirky inventor, not a bona fide scientist.
The mainstream of academia has a very difficult time with
quirky inventors – going back to Tesla.
Rossi is somewhat of a Tesla figure, in many respects.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
