Hi Jed, I wonder if I'm missing something? You said a the 1 MW ecat plant would cook people in the warehouse? I'm for sure no boiler expert but I have recently checked on line and if we look at other boilers with other heat sources it seems that steam boilers of MW size are rather typical for industrial applications and are often accommodated in warehouses. The sizes also seem to me to be comparable to the e-cat. I didn't get the impression from those sites that they are too hot for the warehouse. Perhaps I miss some details and a boiler engineer will add something.
In case it helps here are some links: Note the first one deals mostly with "high pressure boilers" but makes a good list of typical applications, where as the second one also gives some typical "low pressure steam boilers" that run with steam about 120 deg C. This does not sound too dissimilar to the 1MW ecat to me. Are you sure 1MW heat is so difficult to handle? http://www.bosch-industrial.com/files/BR_IndustrialBoiler_Beginners_en.pdf https://www.viessmann.com/com/content/dam/vi-corporate/COM/Download/Oil-gas-boilers-and-hot-water-boilers.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original.media_file.download_attachment.file/Oil-gas-boilers-and-hot-water-boilers.pdf Of course we still need to see how the heat was applied in the e-cat case but maybe it was along the lines of one of the applications mentioned in the first link? I understand from your information that you have heard there was no application though, which I agree sounds strange. > On 13 mei 2016, at 20:37, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > In his latest travesty of a blog, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> "However I think his anger has a deeper cause- he is wanting or being pushed >> somehow to defend IH's very unnatural, surprising and implausible position >> so he has to tell difficultly believable things- he also does not know much >> about IH's real position , arguments and justifications. Do you agree, Jed?" > > No, this is completely wrong in every respect, as I have pointed out many > times previously: > > No one is pushing me. > > There is nothing unnatural, implausible or unbelievable about I.H.'s claim. > Any person who understands calorimetry and examines the data will agree with > their analysis. If Rossi and Penon seriously believe there is 50 times output > they are both certified idiots (not just Penon). > > As I said, several times, I have seen some of the technical data from the > calorimetry. Based on that, I am sure I.H. is correct, and Rossi is wrong. I > have also seen independent verification of this data from sources outside of > I.H., so I am sure it is real. > > I know enough about I.H.'s "real position" regarding calorimetry to judge > this matter, although I look forward to learning more. I know nothing about > business arrangements or contracts. > > I have enough information to judge these things with confidence. You, on the > other hand, know nothing about them. All you have to go on are Rossi's > assertions from his blog. These range from nonsense to impossible. The > information he already released in the lawsuit rules out his claims. If the > reactor were producing as much heat as he claims, he and the others in the > building would be cooked. They would be dead. In fact, it is not producing > any excess heat. If and when I.H. becomes free to publish the technical data, > everyone will see this, and you will see that Rossi has been playing you for > a fool. > > - Jed >
