-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] In reply to Jones Beene's message
>In trying to look at it from Rossi's POV, the "cascade" was the only >rationale which made logical sense to me - as to why he would go 100+ >modular units. Multiple reports exist of varying power output from the device. Such variability wouldn't be acceptable in a commercial device. By ganging a hundred units together, the variability tends to average out resulting in a much smoother output. Hi Robin, Well yes, that's a decent reason ... but if it were only for the purpose of 'smoothing,' isn't having 100 a bit of overkill? 3 would have been fine for that purpose. There must be more to it. Jones Of course, has anyone mentioned that he could have already tried to double the size of the unit, and discovered a reverse economy of scale? Or else he found a high failure rate (when he goes to higher power levels). Consequently, the 10-15 kW unit may be optimal. Why is it that we are so accustomed to positive "economy of scale", that we often fail to notice that 'scale' can operate in a reverse way, as well. This is probably giving Rossi too much credit. I doubt if had the funds to try very many variables.
