Dear Jones, just from curiosity, in what kind of P-in has to be included the pump's power and why? Peter
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > I should add one thing relevant to the Swedish testing. > > We presume (hope) that the Swedes will not use a hose connected to plumbing > where you get free water pressure, and will use a pump. The pump's power > must be included in P-in. > > A liter/sec pump seems to require one horsepower or about .75 kW. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene > > Nick, > > No, all of this nonsense is explained by Rothwell picking out an irrelevant > detail in a long thread, and ignoring everything else - in order to cover > his trail in case the Swedish testing does conform to my prediction. > > There is no factor of 1000 relevant to anything but the high thermal > excursion in the second "secret" data of mid-Feb. In fact, Rothwell hates > to > admit he was wrong on this minor point - so he drags out a "label", as it > were, pretending that it has relevance to the January demo - which it has > none. > > He got cornered on the bet proposal, feels slighted that he has blindly > trusted bad data - and is now trying vainly to save face. > > BTW - I'm basing the COP of ~10 estimate on both an alternative theory and > on real NiH data not from Rossi. > > Jones > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Palmer > > Re: the Jones/Jed spat > > Part of it might be explained by the confusion between "factor of 2 or 3" > and "factor of 1000". If one was meaning orders of magnitude and the other > wasn't, the flame war might become more resolvable. > > Nick Palmer > > > > > > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
