I was referring to the evidence supporting the claimed COP and not the usefulness of the steam itself. Accurate measurement of the heat power is the important issue at hand. Of course the guys calculating the COP must know how much heat the steam contains. That seems obvious and not needing to be stated.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Rossi Patent Appln..publishes Today From: "David Roberson" <dlrober...@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 9:39:11 AM > The quality of the steam is not that important provided a method to > accurately measure the amount of heat it contains is used. A COP of 11.07 is > important and represents a significant improvement above the earlier > specification of greater than 6. If you are concerned about the accuracy of > the measurement then that is a different problem. The steam quality is critically important, as it can range between 0% (NO water vaporized) and 100% (ALL the water vaporized). This is exactly the same configuration as was used for the original 1MW acceptance test -- generator, reactors, condensers in a recycling loop. I don't THINK this includes a heat exchanger, which (if the thermocouples are connected properly) can give an irrefutable measurement. The total output is 1.440113 MW --- so "reactor 600" is most likely the initial on-site customer acceptance test for the new 1MW system
