At 02:07 AM 3/24/2010, Peter Gluck wrote:
This leads to a question:
What is better?
a) 6 times~ 10% heat excess
b) 2 times 500% heat excess, 4 times...no heat excess
Taking in account that 10% is a scientific curiosity, 500% is of
technological interest.
By the way, what are the performances of Melvin Miles' system?
Thank you for any opinion/information.
peter
The more reliable result is more interesting. I recommend listening
to Hagelstein's comments in that press conference. He talked about
parameter space. When results aren't reliable, exploring the
parameter space is very difficult, and then optimization is very difficult.
Suppose we have a product using the (b) technology. One time out of
three it produces 500% energy, the other two it's a dud. Could you
sell this product? Maybe. If you could make these cells very small,
you could make a product with hundreds of them in it, and then get
133% heat excess. Probably not good enough, though, unless it is very
cheap. (Improved Efficiency Hot Water Heater).
10% heat excess, if it's reliable, can then be explored, one step at
a time, one parameter at a time, in controlled experiments building
up a knowledge of the parameter space. It can be optimized and
through this it may be possible to improve the yield. Maybe improve
it a lot. Maybe even improve it to 400% excess.
An additional problem is that when results aren't reliable,
theoretical exploration and testing is very difficult as well.
Miles is on the right track. I didn't go down the excess heat path in
my kit design, because calorimetry was difficult and expensive, I was
told. He might be changing that. But I'm eager to see his results.
