On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> > Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test > apply to another. No. I'm objecting to Rothwell making exactly that assumption. I have no problem with Rothwell arguing that the 18-hour test proves the ecat works. If the numbers are true, it does seem like compelling evidence. But he has used the 18-hour test to claim it proves the January demo worked. That's my objection. It proves no such thing. > Even if device characteristics were not different, to make the device > operate with high flow rate would take presumably higher reactor power > input, otherwise the reactor temperature would lower, underr reasonable > assumptions. Exactly. So, if the conditions are different, the power is different. So, it doesn't prove anything about the January test. But by the way, if it is the same ecat, and being cooled more effectively, and having lower input power, how exactly would it run with higher power?
