Since your last post I looked around at about a dozen other articles and none of them ever reported the unit ever ran at 1 MW.
They reported that a “glitch” was found (none explaining what the glitch was), and that the customer had to make a decision to run it either 1 MW in powered mode or half-power in self-sustain mode. They had to make the choice before it started up, and they chose to do the self-sustain at half power.
As far as I can find it never ran 1 MW at all. they had to pick either 1 MW/powered or half power/self-sustain.
Here's the gist of what I read. The 1MW E-Cat was started and stabilized in "power modulated mode" (i.e. some power provided to heat the reactors). After stabilization, it ran in "power modulated mode" for some period of time (length of which I don't recall), during which its output was measured at 1MW with a COP of 6:1 (exactly on spec). At that point in time, the customer was asked whether he wanted to continue for the rest of the run in "power modulated mode" at the 1MW level, or in "self sustaining mode". The customer chose the latter option. Due to the "finickiness" of the "self sustaining mode" it was found necessary to decrease the run power to ~480KW. NO HEATING POWER WAS DRAWN FROM THE GENSET during that period....only parasitic loads. The "pathological skeptics" are ASSUMING that the generator provided all the power and the whole thing was a fake. There was certainly a means of measuring the applied power...this is fundamental to the whole test.
"They had to make the choice before it started up, and they chose to do the self-sustain at half power.As far as I can find it never ran 1 MW at all. they had to pick either 1 MW/powered or half power/self-sustain.
I have read NO articles even hinting at the above, and it contradicts a lot of the other tests (in particular the 8 October test, which was a virtual duplicate in methodology to the 28 October test.....just with a single E-Cat instead of many).