On 11-11-02 02:22 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hi,

On 2-11-2011 19:07, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,

No I didn't. (No credit where no credit is due, please.) It's the same argument that's been bashed around for the last how-ever-many months.

I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level could have been held constant to better than 1%, and precisely matched to the pump rate. Jed and a number of other people see no problem with it. That's it, in a nutshell, and my recent post didn't contain anything new except a simple calculation which nobody had bothered to do previously.

Ok, then let me repeat it.

No need, I read it the first time. It has nothing to do with what I said (aside from my '50%' comment), and I have no idea why you felt the need to repeat it. It certainly doesn't bear on the apparently fabulous precision of the output control. Since it's not relevant I felt no need to spend time answering it.

Off hand I'd say you didn't get my point, and probably still haven't. If not, well, too bad. Read the arguments from last summer if you want to see it hammered on some more.


You are ignoring some simple facts.

As Sterling Allan points out at: http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/ "Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level. The customer opted to go for the self-sustain mode."

So in fact 1 MW was actually achieved by >>> 107 <<< (10 kW) modules containing each 3 e-Cats of 3.3 kW; see also the pictures of Rossi's report for these details. http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk

So what? What's this got to do with the remarkable degree of control being exhibited?



In my opinion it only shows that to get 1 MW with a COP of infinite from such a system in self-sustain-mode it needs to be dimensioned to produce 2 MW with a COP of 6 in not-self-sustain-mode.

Kind regards,

MoB



Reply via email to