Dave,
 
In selfsustaining mode, there is no input power to the cylinder. So I don't
understand the 3 first sentences of your email. Self sustain mode is no
input power and you say 2.359 kW. Duty cycle is 118/328 = 0.359. Time when
the system was not in self sustaining mode is 328-118 = 210 hours.
 
Something is wrong about the total energy consumed as claimed by Rossi. If
total energy consumed is 278.4 kWh and 210 hours of non self sustained mode,
the average power consumption is 1.32 kW, not 2.4 kW as said in the report.
If we take the total time, things go worse ...
 
Or am I missing something ?
 
Arnaud


  _____  

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 
Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 23:18
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7


Maybe so ChemE!  My quick analysis reveals that the true COP in the self
sustaining mode is in line with his earlier statements.  If you take the
total input energy during the self sustaining mode (278.4 kWh) and divide by
the hours in this mode (118 Hours) you get 2.359 kW.  This matches his
average input power listing of 2.4 kW.  And it is likewise stated that the
peak input is 5 kW.  This matches my simulations fairly well where the duty
cycle is at 2.359/5 = .4718.  The output power is stated as 14.337 kW.  If I
use these numbers I calculate the COP in this mode as being 14.337/2.359 =
6.0775.  Note also that the peak power output to the peak input is 14.337 /
5.0 = 2.8674 which is in line with his previous statements that this ratio
is 3 to 1 in his design that also is in line with my earlier simulations. 

These numbers are consistent with what Rossi has been telling the world for
a long time and my simulations support the numbers when temperature control
is applied to my simulated device.  Perhaps this time we have the proof we
seek if the numbers hold up to scrutiny.

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7


The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer
overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the
blinding array of photons released:)

On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote:


I certainly hope that the new data is accurate.  But if history repeats
itself, there are likely to be errors of some type.  When will we get to see
independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? 

Dave


Reply via email to