> From: "Joshua Cude" <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:13:43 AM
> I have not seen perfectly good reasons for it. The reasons given that > you need input heat to control the heat seem like an excuse to keep > the power connected to me. Is there another example of a reaction > triggered by heat that is regulated by the addition of heat? Most likely. And staying with COP=6 is the stable zone. (See the November melt-down). > A device with a COP of 3 is not better than a heat pump. That's for MARCH, which was intentionally run at lower power, choosing stability over COP. The December test (which you reject because you don't know what paint was used -- emissivity likely to be around 0.9) had a COP=6. Rossi says he's working on an interface to a Siemens(?) turbine. That would be COP=6 * 30% efficiency for electricity, PLUS 70% heat for a combined-generation capability. Even then I don't think you//// a sensible engineer would want to feed it straight back, again for stability reasons, without maybe an intermediate bank of batteries. I'm sure that if the tokomak hot fusion guys ever get more the 2kWh (current record) out of their system, that you'll demand they feed their own power back. (OK, OK .. so we're talking about "physical impossibilites" vs "Engineering impossibilities")
