Hi,
On 1-11-2011 22:31, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
That's with multiple E-cats working together, and with a system which
was flaky enough that the final power level measured was just under
half what it was supposed to be (that's a 50% variation from what was
predicted).
So, we've got a system whose output can't be predicted to better than
50%, yet its power output can be controlled with a precision of better
than +/- 1/2 of a percent.
Doesn't that strike you as just a little strange?
Not at all, as you are ignoring some simple facts.
As Sterling Allan points out at:
http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/
"Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to
make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain
mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level. The customer
opted to go for the self-sustain mode."
So in fact 1 MW was actually achieved by >>> 107 <<< (10 kW) modules
containing each 3 e-Cats of 3.3 kW; see also the pictures of Rossi's
report for these details. http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk
In my opinion it only shows that to get 1 MW with a COP of infinite from
such a system in self-sustain-mode it needs to be dimensioned to produce
2 MW with a COP of 6 in not-self-sustain-mode.
Kind regards,
MoB
