Beside that question, one participant "ajb" on lenr-forum make a quick optimistic computation, based on the safe assumption that Defkalion is fooling nobody... (I hear the moderate and hard skeptics moan already).
http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2136-Defkalion-Demo-During-ICCF-18-(Milano-)&p=5594&viewfull=1#post5594 so : Let us assume that LENR+ works, is not rocket science, and that Defkalion have simply said the truth. I hear the moderate and hard skeptics moan already - since it is an erroneous assumption I propose the skeptics don't comment; So I invoke the vortex-rule , ah ah. ;-) The goal is not to check if it is true, but what are the potential performance of Hyperion from the best data we have. AJB use the data from the Italian test (I did not check/see the data, please correct him ), because the US test was compromised by argon. from the data point he find COP of 20.9 and 18. then he make an assumption : that only the plasma excitation is required . It is rational since warming heat could be provided by the reaction itself. With that assumption, the COP could go to 167. I anticipate some technical problems to remove warming during cruise , since the reactor need some specific thermal gradient, which the reaction many not create naturally. anyway, some engineers may design the cooling and the reaction chamber, to enforce that gradient. If not easy to do just by design, maybe some controlled tap of coolant may dynamically control the gradient... I did not check the computation myself, and I imagine that you will do better than me. note that the assumption are the optimistic/realistic one : - no fraud - dry steam at 150C 1athm - good engineering to use reactor heat top heat itself in that optimistic context, tell me if AJB got it right, or not. Maybe there are errors in the measurements or computations, but the method seems a good start. 2013/7/29 Teslaalset <[email protected]> > There is a discrepancy on the HV power indeed. > At some moment in the video Mats remarked that he measured 1100 Watt input > power of the HV unit. > There was no instant response to that remark. The wall dispay indicated > around 200-250 Watt HV input power to the reactor. > Despite the fact that it was mentioned that HV is modulated, the 1100 W > remains a high value. > HV units should have a higher efficiency than observed. > > > > Op maandag 29 juli 2013 schreef Craig ([email protected]) het > volgende: > > On 07/28/2013 05:08 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: >> > There may well be a pressure (and temperature) drop down the output >> > tube to outlet --- but from steam tables and a guess at the tube size >> > and length I'd be surprised if it is more than about 0.5 bar -- so the >> > COP is most likely at the 10+ level. (Presuming that Mats' calculation >> > of the spark power is wrong). >> >> I read that Defkalion answered Mats Lewan's objection to the HV power. >> There is apparently a 20% duty cycle; so Mats calculated input power >> should have been divided by 5. >> >> I can't remember where I read this, however. >> >> Craig >> >>
