On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I do not think that a first-generation Rossi device would be cost > effective for this purpose [electricity generation]. > If not, it will not be much more useful than a heat pump. > Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 2) COP 6, feeding 167 kWs of electricity generated back into the input to >> generate 1 MW thermal >> > > The COP for the Defkalion reactors is much higher than 6. They have been > saying this for months. If Rossi's reactors are only 6 I do not understand > why. He has achieved heat after death for many hours. > After heating them for nearly as many hours. The COP has to take account of all the input energy, and intermittent heating is still heating. Why on earth is he stuck as an overall COP of 6? His large demonstration on > Oct. 28 had a much higher COP. > It's not even obvious that it is greater than 1. > > Assuming Defkalion's claims are real, they appear to be far ahead of Rossi > in engineering. As I said, there has never been a reason to believe that > cold fusion is stuck at any particular COP. > As long as you need electricity to produce heat, you will need something above the reciprocal of the efficiency of electricity generation to dispense with the input. Since Rossi only needs thermal input, he should be able to lose the input with any gain at all. Funny, he still brings a 450 kW generator to demonstrate a "480 kW" ecat. > Basically, I think you can ignore the COP. > Yet, they don't. > 2. This device will be obsolete in months. Much cheaper and better ones > will be available. > Right. It's been 9 months since the first ecat was demonstrated. The newer ones are worse and bigger and more expensive. > That always happens with first-generation devices. > First-generation devices .... *that work*. > 3. Power companies will be gone in 30 years. > And cold fusion cars will be available by the year 2000, right? Have you made a prediction about cold fusion that has come to pass yet?
