On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: > What did he mean by that? I don't know how should a view that message.
Neither do I. It is obvious from what we read that it is Andrea Rossi who is in breach of contract if he was to deliver a reactor which was stable over 48 hours of operation (I assume this means without intervention by AR). I'm sure this is the reason he kept reducing the COP of his reactors from 30+ to 6- trying to find a spot whereby he could initiate the reaction but remain in control of it. He told The Customer (TC) that he could make the 10/28 demonstration at 1 MW but he would have to input almost 170 kW to ensure stability. He offered to operate the reactor at 1 MW but TC chose operation at half that without any input power to maintain control of the reaction. Now, from Rossi's POV, he probably thinks he delivered on the Defkalion contract at a COP of 6; but, considering that the capital cost is likely the same for a reactor with a COP of 30 (per kernel), Defkalion probably felt cheated. Or maybe it was written into the agreement that the reactor had to have a minimum COP and Rossi could not achieve that under stable operation. Hopefully, we will know more this week. My bet is that Defkalion delivers reactors with a COP greater than 30 which will make their payback period much more attractive. They are claiming they can deliver a 5 MW reactor. Well that would be equivalent to a Rossi 1 MW reactor except with the higher coefficient of performance. T
