From: Axil Axil
* One gram of hydrogen per day is a HUGE amount of hydrogen inputted into a closed system and consumed. * Where could it all be going? It is really difficult to seal against leaks of pressurized H2 with top quality equipment and this appears to be far from top quality - more like Home Depot overstock. But looks can be deceiving. Therefore, if the figure is accurate, and Rossi should know by now after two years of operation and "thousands of reactors" built, then the output appears to be less than Millsean and far less than nuclear, it would appear. Although the Mills device "on paper" can be more, according to Robin - in operation it produces 200 times more than chemical on average, at least that is what Randell Mills has said can be expected. Correct me if this is wrong, but he has said this repeatedly over the years. But anyway - here is what Mats Lewan sez "The tests lasted for two and three hours respectively and the total net energy developed was calculated to be 5.6 and 6.9 kWh" OK, I will leave it to Stephen or Robin to do the numbers but it would seem on first blush that since this is net energy, then the first test operated at 5.6/2 or an average rate of energy production of 2.8 kW/hr and the second was 6.9/3 or 2.3 kW/hr so the average of the two for continuous output is about 2.6 kW/hr which is below the earlier testing but this is with the "supposedly" small cell. I say "supposedly" since the Jan. large cell was never shown. The heating value of H2 is 130 kJ/g which is equal to .04 kWhr. This seems to work out to the Rossi reactor being about 65 time more than chemical. A nuclear reaction should be about one million times more energetic, and a Millsean reaction should be about 200 times. Are we in agreement so far?
