Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question. I overlooked the fact that
you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW run.
(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of-vaporization
issues.)
On 11-11-07 09:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Quick question, Horace: Are you going for the 470kW which was
claimed, or are you working with a reduced number?
The 470 value seems to have been predicated, once again, on total
vaporization of the input water. If that didn't take place then the
generated power may have been substantially lower.
