> vorl bek <vorl....@antichef.com> wrote: > > > > This was 1/50 of the 1MW assembly, so it should be putting out > > 20kw. 3.5kw is a disappointment. > > > > In what universe is that a "disappointment"? If any other cold > fusion test have produced 50.4 MJ in four hours with no input > the researchers would think they had died and gone to heaven. If > you showed that test to Robert Park I guarantee he would think > he had died and gone to hell. > > Rossi announced previously that he would run the cell below the > level it will be at in the 1 MW reactor. I was hoping it would > be somewhat higher but 3.5 kW, measured in the secondary loop, > is plenty high. > > > > > And so is the fact that it ran for only 4 hours, which may not > > rule out a chemical reaction. > > > > Only 4 hours? > > It does rule out a chemical reaction. That is more energy than > you get from 1 kg of gasoline (45 MJ), which also requires > oxygen, which is not present in the cell. After they open up the > machine they will find that the cell is small. The best possible > chemical fuel is hydrogen and oxygen
Really? I should have thought that by now some exotic space-age compound would exist that would Allow Rossi to power the device for 4.1 hours. > and you could not begin to > produce 50 MJ with a small cell. You could not store it or > ignite it. > > (Note that 1 kg of gasoline is considerably more than 1 L. I > don't recall how much, but gasoline is lighter than water.) > > > > > If that is the best Rossi can do I guess we will have to stick > > with Big Oil. > > > > There is no indication that this is the best Rossi can do. This is 11 out of 11 tries, according to Krivit, and most people are yawning, if not indignant, at the lack of results. He really knows how to hide his light under a bushel. > > - Jed
