The COP etc is meaningless without replication or at the very worst - third party verification.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan, > > The report notes that they ignored the energy needed to heat the steam > beyond 100C and also underestimated the flow by 10% to be conservative. > Does this affect your analysis? > > Jack > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *From: *"David Roberson" <[email protected]> >> *Sent: *Thursday, November 6, 2014 10:09:13 AM >> >> > I was referring to the evidence supporting the claimed COP and not the >> usefulness of the steam itself. Accurate measurement of the heat power is >> the important issue at hand. Of course the guys calculating the COP must >> know how much heat the steam contains. That seems obvious and not needing >> to be stated. >> >> Still needs to be taken into account. They don't describe the structure >> of the "boiler". Since they're only aiming for 100C steam the hotcat >> heater elements are most likely immersed in a tank of water, so they just >> boil the water and don't super-heat the resulting steam. >> >> In that case it's most like a kettle boiler, which will typically (is >> this situation typical?) generate 95% steam quality. Depending on the >> application they might not even need "dry" 100C steam. >> >> In the original test they just had a simple outlet valve to check that no >> liquid water was escaping. They probably had that here, too, though it's >> not described. >> >> A real-life steam customer will be happy just seeing some steam vented, >> with no liquid water running out of the outlet. >> >> But it won't satisfy scientists and skeptics. Or the patent office? >> > >
