In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 8 Jul 2014 18:17:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] >I would guess 10 kilowatts per hour for the number of hours in the six >month test.
Was that a rate of acceleration or deceleration in the power production? ;) > >4380 hours at 10 kilowatts/hour or 43800 kilowatt hours. or about 44 >megawatt hours. "kilowatt hours" means "kilowatts times hours" it can't also be "kilowatts/hour". The two are direct opposites. You are either multiplying by hours, or dividing by hours, it can't be both at the same time. Contrary to popular belief, "kilowatt" is NOT an abbreviation of "kilowatt hours". Just to set things straight: A kilowatt (kW) is a unit of power, not energy. IOW it is the time based *rate* of energy consumption or production. E.g. how much energy is produced *per unit of time*. A "kilowatt hour" (kWh) is a unit of energy. So I assume you meant 10 kW for 6 months = 10 kW x 4383 hours = 43,830 kWh. > >The amount of hydrogen is fixed through the use of hydrides but the amount >is unknown In that case, you can't possibly determine the energy release per Hydrogen atom, and hence you can't possibly state that Hydrinos are excluded as an explanation. > > >On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:02 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > >> In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:34:49 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >The power density implied by a continuous 6 month test of Rossi's reactor >> >tells me that the energy source that drives the Ni/H reactor must be >> >nuclear and can not chemical. This excludes the hydrino mechanism from >> >LENR. >> >> Do you know how much Hydrogen was used during the test, and what the total >> energy release was? >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
