On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> His October 6 demo featured a much larger and heavier device which was >> poorly inspected and had a lower power density than ever before. >> > > What do you mean by that? The power was 8 kW nominal. That is considerably > higher than some previous demonstrations. > Comparison of *claimed* power is difficult because, contrary to his earlier promise, neither Rossi, nor any of his associates, provided a report of the experiment. He was too busy. The closest thing we have is the report from Mats Lewan. Rossi referred several people to it on his blog, so presumably it has his blessing. Lewan said the output was 2 - 3 kW, which is 3 times lower than the claimed output of the much lighter ecat used in January. It's true, the claimed power from some of the mini ecats was also in this range. (I don't think the evidence even supports 2 - 3 kW, given the uncertainty introduced by the thermocouple placement.) The cell was no bigger than before. > No dimensions of the cell were given. The device was 3 times heavier than the January device, which was considerably heavier than the mini ecats. > I don't get it. > > Are you comparing the power to the total weight of the reactor? > The total reactor (the ecat) clearly participates in the heating of the fluid, so the comparison of the overall power density is relevant. The much lower (claimed) overall power density coincides with the first demonstration that was not supposed to rely on making steam for the power calculation. It also coincides with what Rossi calls self-sustaining. That's suspicious. > As Alan Fletcher pointed out, that is like taking into account the weight > of the shipping container in evaluating the Oct. 28 test. > > The shipping container does not participate in the thermodynamics. The ecat does; all 100 kg of it.
