From: Colin Hercus * Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. There's so much unexplained and so many assumptions that can be made. I'm totally disappointed and disillusioned.
The scenario that best explains many (if not all) of the seemingly irreconcilable issues, including these: 1) the numerous design compromises (is there even a finalized unit?) 2) the perceived need for many units operating together instead of one rock-solid machine 3) the confusing and variable operating results over time, some extremely positive, some not so good (and a few glossed-over null results) 4) occasional unpowered cells producing huge amounts of heat 5) the premature shut-down of some experiments and short runs of other experiments 6) the strange and difficult personality of the inventor ...is no secret when viewed historically. All of these phenomena are consistent with what has been the one keynote issue in LENR and Ni-H for the past twenty+ years: which is that good results are possible, but inconsistent over time - and never "on demand". The way Rossi intends to accommodate and overcome this unfortunate truth is that he proposes to effectively present to the public, in his MW unit, what can be described as the "average results" expected for a chosen number of E-Cats operating together ! This is with the underlying assumption that at any given point in time there will be a distribution of cells performing well, but with lots of them not performing well at all... IOW - he wants to demonstrate the average gain of many cells - and thus avoid the major (historical) impediment of output which is not "on demand".. He may realize that on occasion, any cell can produce 20 KW for periods, but more often it will produce far less, and sometimes it can be lossy. So he has designed a compromise that will hide the individual irregularities (in the average results) and yet he must design any individual cell as if it will hit the best results periodically. However, he has never pulled this off this kind of averaging before, as far as we know, so getting positive results is this fashion is now his pipe dream for October. Logically, if all of the units performed at their best, then something like 4-5 MW (instead of 1 MW) would be possible (giving him full benefit of the doubt), but statistically this never happens - and the control unit must be programmed to actually avoid it. I suspect that any individual cell will provide far more than the expected average for prolonged periods. The effective duty cycle could be somewhere around 25%. In fact if you look at past results in LERN you would find something very similar in the performance of many experiments in terms of statistical probability. Again - this is giving Rossi full benefit of the doubt, and even then I am convinced that due to costing issues glossed over by the inventor, and longer-term operating degradation, that it will be considerably cheaper for any investor to buy the equivalent heat output from solar troughs - than from E-Cats. IOW, there nothing of lasting economic value as the E-Cat device in the form it is currently conceived; but it is still a breakthrough. The real breakthrough (if the Rossi strategy of "energy averaging" proves out) is being able to move from "hundreds of watts on occasion" (which has happened going back 20 years) to "megawatts on demand" and to have this result prominently exposed in the public mentality. This is far more important to the rest of us than you might be thinking, even if the device is an economic disaster. The fact that heat produced this way will cost approximately double the heat from solar troughs will be the issue facing the purchaser of the technology, not Rossi - and by the time this becomes clear: Ing. Rossi will be enjoying his retirement on Miami Beach. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
