OK, you are right in pointing that out. That is another of his games as far as I know. My interpretation is that he ran the device in what he calls a self sustaining mode for a shorter period of time. (118 hours)
During this time he drove the device with a peak power input of 5 kWatts at a duty cycle of approximately .5. This is where he gets the 2.4 kWattt number. All of these figures are in line with his earlier statements in his journal. And, if you take the output power of 14.337 kWatts and divide it by the peak input of 5 kWatts, you get a number very close to what he speaks of as well. I suspect that he allowed the CAT to go into a latched mode at full power for a portion of the time shown for the test. This is a case where it is basically out of control and putting out the maximum power possible. This required no input power since it is truly self sustaining due to internal heat production being enough to keep the temperature above a critical value. I can only guess that he allowed this operation to continue until stopped with some form of heat extraction to defeat the process and allow the unit to cool down. Here it might only take a large fan or other fluid flow to take out enough heat. Is this what he did? Only a few know for sure, but I suspect that the large COP reflects active cooling of some sort as I have suggested to him on many occasions. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 11:43 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another Rossi error? From:David Roberson It looks as though he used the conversion factor of .0001 toconvert the square centimeters to square meters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include the area of the end caps in hiscalculation? Do you suppose he wants to be conservative on thisone? The data is hard to interpret as usual for Rossi, but the numberslook pretty good as a start. Dave What about the “COPof 3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven)” That is “according to Rossi”… or is this too atranslation error, or in need of a conversion factor ? Can Rossi really be this big of a fool ? Or is there a new revision (of the prior revision) that correctsall of this silliness? -----OriginalMessage----- From: Jones Beene Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data - did Rossi also make a devastating math error? Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made the correction, but he seems to make a similar error. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por denone-hot-cat-report/ I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the "Energy Produced" calculation ? After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should only take a few weeks to "close the loop" by converting that heat to electricity.
