At 06:09 PM 8/24/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jouni Valkonen
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Was this approach right or wrong, it can be debated. I think that it
was just wrong approach.
I agree. Plus I think a test of a 1 MW reactor is fraught with
difficulties. It is much easier to test 1 to 10 kW.
[...]
If he gets nothing in the end, this will be partly his own fault.
His personality may be causing problems. But it seems to me his main
problem is that this particular intellectual property is very tough
to protect. I cannot think of a good marketing strategy. I wouldn't
know how to do this. If he asked my advice, I would suggest he talk
to experts in patent law and intellectual property. Perhaps he has
talked to them. Maybe he has a good strategy. I don't see how doing
a 1 MW demonstration would fit into a good strategy, but since I
know nothing about his plans I cannot judge.
Basically, the obstacle here could be greed. If you charge too much
for something, people will engineer a way around it, unless somehow
your protection is air-tight, which seems to be a problem for Rossi's
technology, whatever it is. If the charge -- as a percentage of the
generated value -- is low enough, people won't bother with the legal
difficulties of a challenge, at least the pressure is in that direction.
A 1 MW demo, it looks to me, was designed to puff up Rossi's ego, not
to establish his position in an engineering and business sense. By
making the announcement and creating the expectation, he set up
conditions whereby all kinds of obstacles might stop him and defeat
him. Instead of delivering a handful of working reactors, he had to
deliver hundreds. This is a problem even if the thing works as he claims!
It's not October yet, but will it be a big surprise if there is no 1
MW demo in October? Or if the demo, itself, is fraught with problems?
If you can fake 5 KW with 800 W input power, you could fake 1 MW with
under 200 KW. Or, given other possible tricks, even less input power than that.
Sure, there would be ways to test it that can't be so easily fooled.
So ... why didn't Rossi allow those techniques with his individual
E-Cats? Sustained performance. Jed, that requires sustained
monitoring of operating conditions.
Hasn't it ever bothered you that in the Kullander and Essen demo, we
only have the temperature data from the first part of the run when,
clearly, the thing had only barely reached boiling temperature during
that period? We have no data on when the supposed "complete
vaporization" was reached. In fact, that point may never have been
reached, in fact, strictly speaking, it was never reached. The steam
quality "measurement" they did wasn't. More likely, even if the
reactor was operating really well, steam quality wouldn't have gone
above about 95%.
