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
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.