I have asked him because I dislike the planned method of scale up. I hope he has already tested step-wise combinations of, say 3, 12, 25 E-cats working together. As with the airplanes- the start period is critical- heat peaks or inhibition, oscillations (I think) An "E-lion" must have a more sophisticated internal structure. Peter
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Alan J Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote: > Rossi continues to answer and/or avoid answering questions. > > http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=14#comments > > - Andrea Rossi April 5th, 2011 at 5:24 > AM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=14#comment-31263> > Dear Mr Antonio Di Stefano: Thank you for your suggestions. The minimum > size is a module of 2.5 kW of power, so far. Warm regards, A.R. > > Peter Gluck <http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com> > April 4th, 2011 at 12:02 > PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=13#comment-31140> > > Dear Ing. Rossi, > > Metaphorically speaking, why do you intend to combine so many smallish > E-cats, instead of creating a greater E-feline- an > E-lion, E-tiger or something like that? Is there a size, volume limit for > the reactors? > > > Andrea Rossi > April 4th, 2011 at 9:28 > PM<http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=13#comment-31197> > > Dear Mr. Gluck: > I prefer to use small modules for economy scale and safety issues. To > combine even thousands of modules in series and parallels is easy, and zero > risk time thousands is always zero. Why risk? > Warm regards, > A.R. > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
