From: Peter Gluck * * Jones, and why do they claim > 650C and an experiment with duration of 48/48 hours?
Well, maybe so, Peter - but that is not in evidence in the video we are talking about. If they have indeed gotten to both that level of heat, and for that length of time - in the same experiment with a heat sink - then that is a huge advance. But so far as far as they admit, the gain is far less than you think because they say no coolant. No delta T is mentioned. Sure - they have the Ni-H power anomaly, first seen back in 1990, and yes they may be able to get the device up to 650 C, which is a surprise - but if you do not remove heat via a heat sink, then what do you really have? When you insulate well - and then add only the small amount of lost heat through the insulation (10 watts or so) - then - sure you can come back in 48 hours and find the same 650 you started out with two days earlier. That may indicate a power anomaly but it is not where we expected them to be now. Based on what they were saying many months ago - I expected to see at this time the glycol heat exchanger, and evidence of steady levels of ongoing energy - not just a few power surges. This is what they were claiming back then. So yes, DGT have at least "stretched the truth" beyond what is considered to be total honesty. Not that Mills is not FAR worse in doing the same. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
