The question is, how did they measure the energy input?
This is not documented.
This colonel engineer confuses kg and g.
He measures a hydrogen consumtion of 1.7000 kg and dont write down all
significant digits.
Then he subtracts this from a value that means gramm. but is mistakenly
labeled as "kg".
How can we win a war where precise decisions must be made in seconds? ;-)
He makes many handwritten corrections and erasures to ensure he can read
his own writing.
He has two different ways to write a one: "1" and "|" in one and the
same document.
He uses decimal point and decimal "," alternating in one and the same
document.
How can we believe he measured or calculated the electrical energy or
the diesel consumption correctly?
Possibly he has confused more than that?
This is not a Nato colonel engineer with 30 year of experience in a
multi-language military organisation.
Peter
Am 26.11.2011 13:51, schrieb Berke Durak:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Mary Yugo<maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't originate this. I reprint it with minor changes from ecatnews.com.
...
Interesting! Let's run the figures for the 1 MW demo.
Energy input : 66 kWh -> 238 MJ
Water claimed to be vaporized : 3716 l
Average output temperature : 104.5 C
Average input temperature : 18.3 C
Energy required to heat 3716 kg of water from 18.3 C to 104.5 C :
(104.5 - 18.3) * 4.181e3 * 3716 = 1.34 GJ
So:
COP = 1.34 GJ / 238 MJ = 5.63
So if he and Fioravanti mistook very wet steam for steam, he only
has a cold fusion reactor with a COP of only 5.63, instead of a COP
of 9.49 GJ / 238 MJ = 39.9. What a scammer!!!!
I mean, when I pay $2,000,000 for a cold fusion reactor with a COP
of 40, I don't expect to be given a cold fusion reactor with a COP
of 5.63. Jeeez!!! That's what you get when you go for cheap Italian
knock-off "University of Baloney" cold fusion reactors.
