On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Mary Yugo wrote: > > Rossi ran a nuclear reactor for four hours with a claimed six month >> capability and I am supposed to be ecstatic? >> > > Since it would have cooled down immediately in the absence of anomalous > heat, 4 hours proves the point as well as 40 years would. It wouldn't have, and it didn't. When they removed the hydrogen pressure, and doubled the coolant rate, it only decreased by 10C in 40 minutes, and that was after 3.25 hours of drawing down on the stored heat. Four hours is *nothing* for a 100 kg device. You can buy chemical stoves that will give you 40 hours at 3 kW with a tenth of that weight. Forty years would be *something*. > The heat is there in the reactor. There is no need to conduct, convect or > convey it "back" anywhere. It is already right where it is needed. The > hydride is hot. > > I agree with this. Which is why the absence of real self-sustaining operation (beyond what is possible from thermal storage alone, let alone chemical fuels) makes the claims completely unbelievable.
