From: Nigel Dyer
They dont explicitly say anything about COP, but it a reasonable
interpretation of the display that is shown at 1:17:32. Energy in top
left, COP in the middle. The figures could of course refer to something
else, but I think that if I was doing the experiment then this would be the
figure I would be interested in and would have on my display when doing
internal tests.
The fact that they don't draw attention to COP in the demo is perhaps an
indication that they realise that it is not wonderful. Also the fact that
they do not draw attention to it I think increases the likelyhood in my mind
that the 2.16 figure is is what they are currently thinking is the real
figure. Its sufficiently low that it would be necessary to double check
possible artefacts, such as heat released during chemical decomposition of
the substrate.
This all feels oddly familiar
Thanks Nigel and James. That bit of info is important, given Mills' lawyers
have surely cautioned him about being circumspect with the potential for
liability if he stays too optimistically.
Another reason for asking is that it feels oddly familiar to me too. Some
months ago, it came into focus that in the LENR literature, there were many,
many good validated experiments with Ni-H going back to 1990, in which
anomalous energy was seen over months or in one case - a year, but the COP
was always around 2 or less.
This looked so curious that it might be more than coincidental and was
labeled as the "new normal" for this type of reaction. BTW - the term "Ni-H"
is not limited to this metal only, and other transition metals and alloys
can provide containment, but they invariably cost more than nickel, or do
less, or in the case of moly have an oxidation problem - so element 28 has
become the standard lingo for interaction with H2.
To cut to the chase, the new normal for Ni-H was thought to be 1>COP<2, and
it was seeming like almost anyone who tried hard enough could get results in
this range.
BTW - Most of Mills' early calorimetry studies (yes he did do calorimetry
early on) were in the 'new normal' range. All of these experimenters listed
below showed something similar with Ni-H electrolysis in the COP~2 range.
1) Thermacore
2) Mills
3) Niedra
4) Noninski
5) Haldeman (MIT)
6) Focardi
7) Celani
8) Piantelli
9) Ahern
10) Kitamura
11) Takahashi
In short there was solid gain, real anomalous energy - but it was modest
gain - and remarkably consistent long-term modest gain.
Not many people knew of Haldeman's results at MIT in nickel-hydrogen, since
apparently Lincoln Labs strongly forbade him to publish it following
Mallove's hard criticism of their deuterium effort.
He was the mentor of Brian Ahern, or the work would still be unknown. It
showed gain but did not scale up - and according to Brian is the only reason
that he thought that Mills had anything valid at all, in the early days.
Fast Forward to 2014. Were it not for Rossi, it would be easy to opine that
the limit of Ni-H is COP ~2. And Rossi has still not been validated as well
as all of the experiments above were. Nor has Mills been independently
validated. BLP is said to have paid big bucks to Gen3 for their work - it is
hardly independent.
I realize of course that the recent demo was claimed to be different from
the typical Ni-H electrolytic reaction, and may have used molybdenum instead
of nickel, but was it really different at a fundamental level?
Rossi still provides the only good reason to believe that gain much greater
than twice the input power is possible for Ni-H - in practice in a kilowatt
device.
Anyone can claim 100:1 in a theory.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
