a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is a photo of the ~80 original design reactors in the 1 MW plant > test. as backup for the four 250 kW reactors. > http://www.ecat-thenewfire.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/ > 2015/02/ecat-MW1-USA-team-at-working.jpg > They were not used in the test. Why would Rossi build 2 MW capacity if he > didn't intend to produce any heat at all? > You would have to ask him. The reactor produced no heat. If he had reactor components that did produce heat, he should have used them. > It looks like you got all your information from IH and none from Rossi. > We have to wait for the court case to find out who is telling the truth. > I am sure the Exhibit 5 data came from Rossi. He quoted key parts of it in his interview with Lewan. That is the truth. Exhibit 5 proves he was lying. We don't need a trial to see that. You have given no reason to deny that. > "None of that matters to me. I am sure the pressure was not 0.0 bar." > > If the steam was condensed at the customer's plant this would result in > negative pressure there. > That is not possible. Not with 1 MW of steam. > Why would Rossi not install working reactors when he would be paid $90 > million to do it?!???" > > I can think of several possibilities. IH may not have had $90 million to > pay him. > That would not be a reason for him to run the reactor with components that do not work. He would run it to produce heat. Then he would produce data showing actual heat, and he would use that data in a lawsuit. Instead, he produced data that shows he himself is a fraud, and he described that same data to Lewan, proving it came from him. > IH may have thought they had enough information that they didn't need > Rossi anymore. > He could sue them for that. He cannot successfully sue them when his own data shows no heat and when large parts of it are obviously fake. > IH was misled by Murray who got it wrong. > No, he got it right. I and others came to the same conclusions he did, looking at the same data, before I saw his analysis. - Jed
