Hi Surandy,Like many others, I also read the qtly report. Wrt...

Hi Surandy,

Like many others, I also read the qtly report. Wrt the energy cells, SOR are still being annoyingly vague about how much power they are drawing from these whatever-they-are. 2.4ampere-hours, delivered over a period of (14 X 24) 336 hours is an average of 7.14 milliamps... which I suppose is pretty good. BUT... across what voltage difference? And against what resistance load? volts X amps = watts (power) but have we ever been told the voltage? I'm not aware of having seen this reported. Without the voltage, we can't even guess what power output various configurations of these things are capable of sustaining. Also E (volts) = IR (current in amps X resistance in ohms). So again, was this 7.14milliamps delivered across a representative resistance load or was it a short-circuit current... or what? Does the voltage rise as the resistance is increased, or does enough resistance eventually switch the current off? Have they discovered an effective working voltage range? Information about current delivery without any voltage or resistance contextual information isn't much use to anyone. :-(

Also, according to the immutable laws of thermodynamics, you don't get an "action" without a reaction. These things apparently don't degrade chemically and eventually go "flat" like any battery we've ever seen in the past, so they're not really a battery. But if they're more like a generator, where does the power come from and what form does the reaction take? Is there a measurable cooling of any of the physical materials? Is there a water (or other) precipitation? Does it give off (even minute quantities of) gas? Is something stripped of electrons and left with an (ever-increasing) positive charge? Without any of these, or any other balancing reaction, why would electrons start to spontaneously flow in one direction? If THAT'S what's happening, they've created the legendary, mythical perpetual motion!

Pig.