As Jed pointed out... The test in Feb put out 130KW (129KW is my recollection) for a short period, so if we look at it as a ratio of heat out over volume of reactor chamber, we have:
Feb test: 130K/1000 = 130 Mar test: 4K/50 = 80 >From this, one might try to conclude that the scaled down reactor is LESS >efficient which is just the opposite of what Jones concluded. However, we don't know what the smaller reactor is capable of, nor really what the larger one can do either! So its impossible to conclude anything from the data... The only meaningful way to make the kind of comparison that Jones is trying to do, is to run the two reactors to where they become unstable... And then compare numbers. -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 6:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:Re:[Vo]: Swedish physicists on the E-cat: "It's a nuclear reaction" / The used powder contains ten percent copper Something very fishy-smelling here ... You DECREASE the volume by a factor of 20 and the heat only goes down by a factor of 3. And he is just noticing this! LOL. More Rossi BS - let's face it, this guy is deceptive, and could be delusional. He is trying to hide something by this kind of publicity stunt. It is pure 'misdirection'. There is no way to believe anything he says. But he is clever to handle it this way, since many who see this stunt will applaud him for what may seem to be a more open kind of show-and-tell. But the intent can only be to mislead other researchers who are scrambling to replicate the results. No way do you have a reverse economy-of-scale at this magnitude, and then do not follow up by going even smaller. No way do you do a public demo of a larger unit that is seven times less robust. Rossi is most likely showing off past things that did NOT work well, or at all - in order to protect the larger device that does work well. The large unit is the only one tested in public - and possibly the minimum size factor that works at all. But Rossi would like to encourage the hundred or so replication attempts which are in progress now - to go with the smaller size, since he knows that there is a critical mass threshold and they are doomed from the start if they go with the 50 cc. Jones -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] >Looking at the pictures, it seems to be fairly simple mechanically. The >chamber is 50cc and not 1 liter as we were made to believe. Two different devices. This 4 kW version has a 50 cc chamber. The original 10 kW version had a 1 L chamber.
