On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
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.)
Yes. I am having problems keeping track of things, and have not been
able to read much on vortex of late. Sorry I am a bit behind
responding, and our messages crossed.
Something of possible interest is that the (real) cement slab data is
here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6Sb.png
This can be compared to the fire brick data here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png
The cement data shows the peak energy output much delayed vs the fire
brick, around T540 vs T330. However the peak power out delivered is
less. A similar phenomenon should occur if controls are used to cut
back the power out to make a 6 hour run vs 4 hour run. If the power
out were actually from nuclear energy, not thermal energy stored
using electric power, then such a large drop in output should not be
necessary to accommodate the longer run time. Rossi actually stated
on his blog, if I recall correctly, that the power was reduced from 1
MW because the (prospective) customer required 6 hours instead of 4.
Obviously the shortcoming from the 1 MW output expectation
(objective?) was the fault of the customer! 8^)
Obviously, I claim, as I wave my arms wildly. 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
