Does Peter Gluck know the test results?

I reckon he's read it. This is a quote from February:

"We LENR-ists are much more interested in the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY that is already circulating 1 front page plus appendices but the essential is shown in less than 20 sentences."

Which is quite a specific statement.

Get the blighter leaked Peter! We promise we'll keep it quiet...

Quote

The plant has delivered 8400000 kWh energy to the Customer

If averaged for 10 months/30 days/24 hours = 1,166 MWh or a power of ~ 0.3MW ?

Quote

has consumed a few kWatts less than 400000

Probably he means 400,000kWh Then COP= 8400000/400000= 21 average Not bad when it's working

Gluck has it, as in veile Gluck! COP 21, the opportunities to make this known, particularly in the Stars and Stripes newspaper, which I and my fellow veterans, and those still active, read will be very pleasing. When an energy related article surfaces, my comments will be 21 times more emphatic. So I'll be on the lookout for more info tomorrow or even later today! Happy times.

Dear David,
A comment - with pleasure: If this idea brings the official announcement with a week earlier- than it is a contribution.
It is unfair to keep friends and supporters in the so called but impossible; "positive or negative result" mystery situation. It is about friends- the enmies still willo tell that it was not a truly independent test they are not rational people.

Peter

Quote

It is unfair to keep friends and supporters in the so called but impossible; "positive or negative result" mystery situation. It is about friends- the enmies still willo tell that it was not a truly independent test they are not rational people.

One thing I have learnt from the Lugano "independent test" is that "independent" is a flexible word when applied to Rossi's tests, and also that apparent results, when looked at carefully, can turn out to lie.

That is a rational statement, backed by clear evidence. Making the same points about the current mysterious test is at least a rational initial guess, till more infomation is available.

Dividing commenters into "friends" and "enemies" is I think unhelpful, and can easily lead to a loss of objectivity.

So the quantum erasure experiment results are true.

History is adjusted to support the observed facts.

I looked up the value of those figures for some context.

Average industrial price per kwh in NC over the past year is ~6.24 cents, EIA reference.
So in NC that 8,400,000 kwh would have been worth about $524,160.
The 400,000 kwh input power would be worth $24,960.
Subtracting input costs from the output's value leaves us with a total value of $499,200.

COP21 is the name of the recent climate conference in Paris. Coincidence? I think not!

Ignore these savings at your peril. Rest assured that your competition won't.

400000 but without units.

First, could be watts.

Note that 8,400,000 kWh = EXACTLY 350 days * 24 hours * 1000 kW. No coincidence there

The quoted number is likely 400000 W = 400 kW. 1000/400 = COP 2.5.

Other possibility is Mr. Gluck left off a zero and the number is kWh. Then 8,4000,000/4,000,000 = COP 2.1.

Both of these (2.1 to 2.5) COPs are plausible. If the COP indeed is 21, then the unit may be able to produce electricity using any other number of methods, including an organic (lower temperature) working fluid Rankine cycle system.

ilia's calculation based on 6cents per KWhr(electricity) is great. shows half million annual dollars saving. even if calculation is based
on 4 cents per Kwhr (North Carolina) saving is over 300,000 $.

I cant see using the price of electricity for heating as a comparison, Im pretty sure the Ecat heat would be used to offset natural gas heat or oil heat, not electric heat. Secondly is .06 per KW/h the energy cost only or does this include distribution, transmission and taxes?

The specific heat of raising 1 kg of water 1 degree is 1 calorie.
1 calorie is 4.186 kJ or 0.00412 MJ/kg.

The specific heat of vaporizing 1 kg of water once brought to 100 C is 2.2 MJ/kg.

You can hide a LOT it those two differences. For instance (just to say - not that anyone is making this specific claim), if we have a stream of water that is 25 C to start with, and we wish merely to raise it to boiling (but not boil off but the smallest amount) then the amount of energy is approximately

( 100 C - 25 C ) * 0.00412 MJ/kg = 0.309 MJ/kg (or per liter - again 'almost')

But if you now want to entirely vaporize that to transparent ("process") steam, it takes an additional 2.2 MJ or about 8 times the total energy of 'just' raising its temperature. If one starts with even hotter inlet stream water, the difference is even more apparent. Actually the 2.2 MJ/kg is essentially a constant when starting with liquid water - assuming atmospheric pressure as the head on the process steam.

The biggest problem for process engineers and LENR advocates both is being able to qualify (and quantify) just how 'wet' is the stream of steam. If 50% of the mass is lil' atomized droplets ("white steam") then the actual investment of energy isn't 2.2 MJ + 0.309 MJ, but is 50% (2.2) + 0.309. And so on.

Thus, a 'densely wet' steam generator might only really be vaporizing 5% to 15% of the actual water. And lemme tell you, as a practicing engineer with a physics specialization ... such quantifications are damned difficult to achieve. At least with a straight face.

______

Nope - in my mind there are only a couple of qualification systems that matter in this LENR enterprise: Getting RID of any dependency on vapor-phase calculations (condensation of a steam stream into a finite amount of well-below-boiling water, so as to measure the well-mixed temperature rise given a known and calbrated flow rate, OR, to bulk-heat tanks of water having again finite and calibrated masses (volumes). Measure, heat, mix, measure.

It worked in the 1800s when the famous thermodynamics guys were doing their endless measurements, and it would work just fine today.

The slippery side of claiming 8,400,000 kWh of heat (energy) production on an unqualified (as yet) measurement system, is that a lot of claim can held high on top of a lot of measurement fluff.

Because 8,400,000 kWh / (24 * 365) = an uptime duty-cycle of 96%. ... of 24 / 365 operation. Rather suspiciously like a calculation based on the factory's uptime and just filling in 8760 hours times 1000 kW, and making that as the claim.

Know though that the 400,000 kWh is actually easy to quantify, and easy to certify. Its called a kilowatt-hour meter. I'm pretty sure that the Blue Rossi MegaCat container would have had one on its input line. EAsy, cheap, relatively unimpeachable.

GoatGuy

I used 4c per KWHr based on Natural gas price in NC
http://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=NC#series/28 and 1000cuft=293.07 KWhr

The energy costs are so cheap with #LENR ...it may even be cheaper than hydro, when you take into account the environmental effects of large dams