On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote:
> > > > 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. > Right. Three months of technical "improvements" gave a worse 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. > Well, everyone's counting the Swedes to give credibility, and they weren't there. The December test is as credible as Levi's 18-hour test. That was far better power output, better COP, and a simpler experiment. Just you have to trust Levi, just like here. So they're moving backwards. > 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. > > Sure. He's been saying that for 2 years. > > 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. > > Stabilizing electricity is not a new trick. > 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. The hot fusion guys have not claimed over unity. They don't need it to prove they've got fusion, though. But yes, it will not be considered a success until ignition is achieved, and it can at least power itself. When cold fusion can power itself, it might get some attention.
