Hi,
On 2-11-2011 19:07, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,
No I didn't. (No credit where no credit is due, please.) It's the
same argument that's been bashed around for the last how-ever-many
months.
I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level could have been
held constant to better than 1%, and precisely matched to the pump
rate. Jed and a number of other people see no problem with it.
That's it, in a nutshell, and my recent post didn't contain anything
new except a simple calculation which nobody had bothered to do
previously.
Ok, then let me repeat it.
You are ignoring some simple facts.
As Sterling Allan points out at:
http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/
"Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to
make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain
mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level. The customer
opted to go for the self-sustain mode."
So in fact 1 MW was actually achieved by >>> 107 <<< (10 kW) modules
containing each 3 e-Cats of 3.3 kW; see also the pictures of Rossi's
report for these details. http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk
In my opinion it only shows that to get 1 MW with a COP of infinite from
such a system in self-sustain-mode it needs to be dimensioned to produce
2 MW with a COP of 6 in not-self-sustain-mode.
Kind regards,
MoB
