yes, calorimetry is not needed IF you believe the claims, methods, and the 
effect.  As you may know, I don't doubt the reality of CF/LENR in general.  
However, if you goal is to convince "non-believer" then it is best to avoid 
systems where you have to know the exact waveforms, cables, instruments, 
material emissivity's,.....  you name it. Perhaps the reaction is controllable, 
perhaps not.  Perhaps the reproducibility between samples is solved, perhaps 
not. 
 
Heating a pot/container of water from a standalone unit is the way to go .... 
in my humble opinion. 
 
Perhaps there will be a commercial product in the near future or not.  Perhaps 
there will be a "real" company that will come out and endorse the devices in 
the near future, perhaps not.
Until that time their will be vocal skeptics. And the more complex and 
calculation based the demo, the less likely it will be to accepted by the 
"skeptics".  
 
Again, from my vantage point, the best demo would be a stand alone that does 
not require any calculations or understanding of how a specific instrument work 
or was used.  That  should become possible somewhere around a COP of 5 to 10.  
Until then there will be doubts. 
I think we are within striking distance of that.  (note at COP 6 you would need 
a 17% eff. engine - that is will within range if you are working between 300C 
and 25C). 
 
And no, I don't think that they were over unity by more than an order of 
magnitude-  Only a factor of perhaps 6. I need to go back and check that. 

 D2
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:55:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe...
To: [email protected]

Even though I'm still wearing my skeptic's hat (that's the one with the 
propeller on top) isn't the argument about the need for calorimetry made 
irrelevant the amount of energy observed to have been generated? In other 
words, even with more precise measurements the exact energy output couldn't 
have been something more than an order of magnitude lower which would still 
validate the claim of significant over unity energy output.


[mg]
                                          

Reply via email to