#Solarcell blp full

This is my personal opinion - the hydrowave technology has stepped forward 100 years. I ask you to be correct in your statements. At the same time, you will nod towards cavitation technologies and you will be partly right - there is also no heat transfer through the wall, in the hydrowave technology a qualitative step forward was made in relation to cavitation technologies and for this reason COP ~ 100 is possible there.

I do not agree with you, they are brilliantlightpower, they are not leaders already by the fact that it was applied back in 2003-2006 hydrowave technology, in which there is no heat transfer through the wall. And the main thing is that all the technologies you are discussing - almost everything - if I am wrong, then correct me, or otherwise they use heat transfer 'through the wall' - heat transfer through the wall. You missed the main thing that I post on this forum. they are light years ahead of what anyone else in the field has ever accomplished.' I am upset. If true, and I believe it is, they are light years ahead of what anyone else in the field has ever accomplished.ĭear like-minded person! You wrote - '.

#Solarcell blp full

They say they are working on a better control system to produce the full 250kW (COP10). Still not bad with a commercial load, and able to run continuously within the limits of their cooling system. Interestingly the Nansteel paper does not comment on the somewhat contrary result of why, in the two Nov 10th runs, the run that had lower applied input power and a cooler cell nonetheless significantly bested the hotter cell in apparent energy gain: 2.0 to 1.6. Please BLP, avoid theses change of state experiments to calculate excess energy! The word 'steam' does not appear even once in the paper, only 'vapor'. From videos it is obvious that wet steam (a mixture of visible liquid water droplets and invisible gaseous water vapour) is leaving the water surface, not an invisible gas that only later condenses to steam. The imo egregious sin of the experimental setup in this Nansteel validation paper is that it is (again!) using the (unspoken!) assumption that all the water lost originally experienced a high energy-of-formation change of state and escaped as pure vapour. Of course you can't rely on a mere video, that's why the validation report is included where things are carefully quantified. I hate to say this, but BLP videos prove absolute nothing about BLP overunity claims. With thick electric cables like this the boiling presented is still pretty modest.