Regarding the last important test performed on Hot Cat, you have read and widespread the report released from Rossi, anticipating in some way the document that will be released and signed from an independent third party. Here below I would underline some important points regarding such a report.
But, first of all, I would like to clarify some general aspects regarding “self-sustaining” referred to an E-Cat apparatus. When an E-Cat is in “self-sustaining mode”, it means that the reactor absorbs zero energy in input: so, a power meter registers only the electricity needed for the controls, i.e. a few watts.
Well, you can run an E-Cat in: (1) continuous or (2) intermittent self-sustained mode.
The first case is used sometimes for the experimental work but never in front of an audience, as it is unstable, but very impressive because you can reach high COPs: 100-200. So, it is not used in the E-Cats on the market, which operate in an intermittent self-sustained mode with a (guaranteed) COP 6, a very safe and stable condition. I have seen the E-Cat working for long periods in this last modality.
An E-Cat working in intermittent self-sustaining mode is substantially similar to an electric iron, because it alternates phases of on-off regarding the electric input power, but with the difference that an E-Cat produces heat by itself even when it does not absorb electric power.
As the last test on Hot Cat aimed to obtain a (very) conservative estimate of its COP, it was conducted in intermittent self-sustained mode, the same used in a real product. Not considering at all the energy output dissipated by convection and conduction – which accounts for at least a 10-15% more – the measurements clearly show that the guaranteed COP 6 is fully satisfied also for this type of E-Cat!
Indeed, Rossi said that the duration of self-sustained mode, in this test, has been of 218 hours, not 118 as appeared in the first versions of the report for a typo, and the produced energy cited in the document has been cut of 30% to subtract all the possible margins of error. This means a minimum COP near 12.
Please note the simplicity of all energy measurements, made with a top class instrument for the electric input and a thermal camera also used in the military field – and with a 1% accuracy – for estimating the radiative component of the thermal output. Prudently, a below-unit emissivity has been assumed, instead of the correct value “1” for a black body, so the calculated COP is clearly underestimated.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/repor ... ldo-proia/
[/img]
but one can assume your answers to the hours mismatch are correct. At least they make the math work, but having been down this well traveled path before I can not help but thing something is still glitchy with this idea.