Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote: So, there was no feedback control of the power level, > *by definition of the terms of the test.* >
Yes, and the data shows this as well. Power is pretty much the same day after day. (It was even the same on days when Rossi said the reactor was half turned off or fully off, which is suspicious.) > And there was no feedback control of the flow rate, > > *by testimony of Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate. *In > short, > *there was no possible active matching of power level to flow rate.* > That was my conclusion, too. > The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient to exactly > vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore, coincidence. (Either > that, or the steam was *not dry*.) > Plus I think the pressure was higher than 0.0 barG. - Jed
