In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:17:21 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I think this report is odd because -- > >1. As I said before, it should not take a year to test the machine. Any >HVAC engineer can confirm it is producing heat in a few hours.
That may be true of normal commercial equipment that has already had the teething problems removed, and where one may expect consistent action. However that is not likely to be the case with Rossi's reactor. He was baby-sitting it for the year, and fixing things whenever it broke down. The output would have been erratic, so a test lasting just a few hours would not have been representative. The customer needed to know that it would pay off in the long term. Hence the year long test. >Perhaps it >takes a year to determine reliability, but as I said before, reliability is >not an issue with a first-generation prototype machine. It is bound to be >unreliable. Indeed, but this was sold as a working device, not a prototype (even though it proved to actually be a prototype). Presumably, Rossi learned from the breakdowns, and improved the product as he went along. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
