# Re: [Vo]:Focardi and Rossi paper

```I wrote:

```
Anyway, this 80 W strikes me as odd, but that may only be a function of my ignorance of this technique, and the lack of detail in the paper. But what does this 80 W mean?
```
```
Maybe this means it takes only about 80 W to bring it up to the operating temperature. That would mean the cell is well insulated. In that case, how do they keep from drastically from overheating when it produces 3 kW? . . .
```
I have confused the issue here. Let me set the record straight.

```
As you see in the paper, it is not 80 W at all. In the first 1-day test period in Table 1 they list 0.2 kWh of input energy, not power. And that would be 8 W average if it was turned on the whole 24 hours. Eight, not 80. My arithmetic is hopeless. Anyway, I assumed that was steady power the whole day but maybe it was turned up to 200 W for the first hour and it was off the rest of the time. Who knows.
```
You would think they would tell us if that's how it works.

```
What would they need 8 W of steady input power for? Am I missing something here?
```
```
Test #4 is 14 days long: Feb. 17 - March 3, 2009. Input energy is much higher: 5.1 kWh. Assuming that is steady, power is ~15 W. Test #5 is 52 days long, 18.54 kWh. Again, that works out to be ~15 W if it is steady. In other words, input energy appears to be roughly proportional to the duration of the experiment. They do not appear to giving it a burst of heat at the beginning and letting is self-sustain. If they were, all of the tests would show roughly 0.2 kWh input, I suppose.
```
- Jed

```