Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

It's hard to believe we've patiently waited for a year for this. Time really flies by. Eric

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

Jones Beene wrote: > > 3) The company in Georgia (Rome?) still makes the cavitation pump > but do not advertise it as gainful. That is word of mouth. > Well, it is word of me. http://hydrodynamics.com/ > 4) If the cavitation pump has COP of 2, then that could

RE: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

Interesting possibilities come from this, none of which are on the map yet . 1) No matter what level of gain comes from Ni-H, the ecat would need to use a pump of some kind to move the water. 2) The ecat needs external heat input to operate. Normally this comes from resistive

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

Jones Beene wrote: > The year was 1992-93 or thereabouts. The claim was excess heat and proof > of a thermal anomaly based on heating water using less electricity than > expected. The device itself did survive and is still in production. Jed > Rothwell was in the thick of

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

I wrote: > Here is a well-written guide to how this is done with a combustion boiler, > with sample worksheets and lookup tables: > > > http://www.cleaver-brooks.com/reference-center/insights/boiler-efficiency-guide.aspx > On p. 9 this manual describes two methods of measuring efficiency:

RE: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

> All that needs to happen as the first order of proof - and it will convince > many skeptics - is to compare electrical usage day-by-day hour-by-hour with > thermal power delivered. Raw data must be available to test any summaries > which are provided by the "expert". How hard is that? **

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

Jones Beene wrote: > > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find > some reason why it might be wrong. > > > Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such tripe. > The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

tak peter On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > Yes of course. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > > Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and > enthusiastically act upon, must

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

dear Lennart your POV too (as Jack's) deserves to be known by The Readers. May I offer it in Ego Out now? peter On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > I really do not see the reason to decide if Rossi's Ecat is working. He is > not a fraud if he does

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

Yes of course. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

I really do not see the reason to decide if Rossi's Ecat is working. He is not a fraud if he does not show that it works but still claims it does. I assume that a positive outcome will be used by Rossi & IH to finance the market roll out. Therefore I think we will receive some information from the

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

We should forget about the patho-skeptics (Cude, Yugo), as their tripe is not worth the time spent reading. I don't know why such people exist in the forums unless they are getting paid to help slow development of LENR. I can't imaging that they get much enjoyment from the time they spend

RE: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

-Original Message- From: a.ashfield > It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find some > reason why it might be wrong. Rubbish. You demean the intellect of the Rossi faithful with such tripe. The reverse is as likely to be true - that no matter how

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

Fabiani would be needed to keep the plant running while other scientists and engineers examine it. Why trust one just one ERV? I wouldn't trust Fabiani over Rossi, but I would trust IH or other scientists to do some additional testing to give a valid calibration. Fabiani is needed to keep the

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

It doesn't matter what test is performed, the pseudo skeptics will find some reason why it might be wrong. Why trust Fulvio Fabiani and not Rossi? So many people who have actually seen and worked on the E-Cat that if it didn't work someone would said that. Yet no one has except Krivit whom

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

thanks, now let's wait for the ERV or its essence (performances) I am sure many people in Andrea's near circles are already informed. peter On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jack Cole wrote: > I should clarify that where I say Fulvio, I mean Fulvio Fabiani >

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

I should clarify that where I say Fulvio, I mean Fulvio Fabiani . On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:40 AM Jack Cole wrote: > Dear Peter, > Thanks. Yes, you can use it as is. > Jack > >

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

Dear Peter, Thanks. Yes, you can use it as is. Jack On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:30 AM Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Jack, > > do you allow me to publish this in my blog EGO OUT? > as it is or add what you wish. > It well thought and clearly written, why should we limit the

Re: [Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

Dear Jack, do you allow me to publish this in my blog EGO OUT? as it is or add what you wish. It well thought and clearly written, why should we limit the readers? Best, Peter On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Jack Cole wrote: > What would convince people one way or another

[Vo]:1MW plant test - best outcome

What would convince people one way or another about whether the 1 MW plant works? The following is purely speculative, but if true could lead to a full resolution of the mystery of the E-Cat. Imagine that not long after Rossi changes the charges in the 1MW plant and tells IH that it is back to