Jones Beene wrote:
Well, the pessimists amongst us will opine that this is looking worse and
worse as an decent energy solution, especially compared to solar or wind.
Most troubling, it is not living up to the "guaranteed" COP>8 at least not
in this testing. Funny how Matts glosses over that fact. Why can they not
get a decent engineer involved ?
Jones: I don't follow what is being said here. I am having difficulty
understanding the Google-translation. Can you briefly summarize what
Daniel said & did here, and why you draw these conclusions?
I see from the photo it has to do with a meter but I can't follow. The
comments below are even harder to understand.
- Jed
