Alan J Fletcher wrote:
There are heat producing machines at 100% thermal efficiency, and
rockets at 96% fuel content. Why quibble over 5% ?
No liquid-fueled rocket as small as the eCat can have 96% fuel. A solid
fuel rocket might be. Your analysis should either exclude liquid fuels
or include a plausible margin for the tank and burners.
As I've said again and again, these are UPPER BOUNDS which CANNOT be
exceeded.
What should one do ... postulate a design and say that "the fuel
content is 50%" -- then someone will pop up and say "but I can design
it with 50.5% efficiency, so your conclusion is wrong."
No, you should say that the smallest tank and burner on the market takes
up a certain volume -- which you can estimate within reasonable bounds
-- and unless this person wants to engage in a pointless fantasy she
should accept this.
"The test should be conducted for a sufficient continuous period to
strongly exclude the possibility of stored chemicals generating the
observed energy output."
Where do you put "strongly exclude" ? 50%, 50% ? 49% 51% ?
Look that up in an engineering textbook.
Setting it at 100% fuel 100% efficiency puts it BEYOND argument.
It puts it beyond a reasonable, reality-based discussion. From my point
of view, you are only feeding the fantasies of the deny-everything
school of pseudo-skeptics. Don't play this game by their rules, or they
will always win.
- Jed
