Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Patrick Ellul wrote: and there is no ventilation system in the reactor shipping container, >> - Jed >> >> Perhaps you missed the part that said "There was also a ventilation > system that conveyed the warm air toward the windows of the ceiling" He > was definitely talking

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Read Matts post on this subject, Many of the points that you are spinning are covered therein. https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/ On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Rossi

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

> > and there is no ventilation system in the reactor shipping container, > - Jed > > Perhaps you missed the part that said "There was also a ventilation system that conveyed the warm air toward the windows of the ceiling" He was definitely talking about the reactor container there.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

There is not many people other that can affirm otherwise! And, please, provide the arguments that these HVAC people you talked to. Otherwise, it's only more hearsay! 2016-05-16 23:36 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > Since there was no excess heat as far as anyone (other than

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

It is a measure of Rossi's reality distortion field that people here are ok with Leonardo's and the ERV's having prevented access to IH to see the customer installation. In any other context, it would be hard to imagine that this would have

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Rossi wrote: There was also a ventilation system that conveyed the warm air toward the > windows of the ceiling. Normally we were not inside the E-Cat container, > where we had to go only in case of reparations or maintainance; here the > temperature was around 40°C. So, the water coming back

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

1. Frank Acland May 16, 2016 at 4:21 PM Dear Andrea, According to the contract published in the court documents, this is the way that the ERV was to perform the measurements in the Validation test: “To

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

1. Oystein Lande May 16, 2016 at 4:59 PM Dear mr. Rossi, You say you had 3KW HVAC coolest for the computer container. 1. This is not the same as e-cat container? 2. How much HVAC cooling did you supply

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Rossi's tem performed maintenance on the reactor for a few day during the 350+ day run. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Not if IH were the ones dealing with the machine. Mats said each party > would have an independent padlock. > > 2016-05-16 22:40

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Not if IH were the ones dealing with the machine. Mats said each party would have an independent padlock. 2016-05-16 22:40 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > The cheating would be done by whoever set up the factory. >

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Rossi was on site in the container 18 hours a day. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Daniel Rocha wrote: > > Not if the ERV makes sure Rossi doesn't know what is in the other room. >> > > And how could he do that? The company

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel Rocha wrote: Not if the ERV makes sure Rossi doesn't know what is in the other room. > And how could he do that? The company is headed up by Rossi's personal lawyer. How could the ERV ensure the lawyer does not let Rossi in after hours? Besides, suppose Rossi gets

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

1. Frank Acland August 5th, 2015 at 4:55 PM Dear Andrea, Thank you for the explanation of the backup plan. Do you think in the future it might be easier and less complex to have one or more tigers as

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

1. Frank Acland September 19th, 2015 at 9:31 PM Dear Andrea, Have you had to activate the small E-Cats that are standing by as a backup if the 250 kW units are offline for an extended time yet? Many

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: Could tou help with the reference? > > Will do tomorrow. For some reason I cannot access the lawsuit stuff with my Chromebook. I have printouts and notes on the lawsuit info. where I noted this. The "drawing" I refer to is here:

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Not if the ERV makes sure Rossi doesn't know what is in the other room. 2016-05-16 22:16 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > > No, actually, it makes it much easier to cheat. In no way, shape or form > does hiding the factory make it harder to cheat. > >

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Could tou help with the reference? On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> I got this info from Rossi/s blog, >> > > Look at the lawsuit instead. > > - Jed > >

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

When I put on my skeptic hat about this report from Mats, I think the following. This is speculation and opinion. Rossi found out about Darden causing doubt among the Lugano scientists. Scared that they may be convinced of the truth (as well as Mats), he plotted a scheme to shore up his support.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel Rocha wrote: As I said earlier, the "costumer" can merely use water to cool down the > water and dump it on the sewer. Only Rossi's loop is closed. The other can > be open. > No doubt that is true, but anyone verifying the performance of the Rossi device should

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: > I got this info from Rossi/s blog, > Look at the lawsuit instead. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

a.ashfield wrote: > "Yes, a woman did, during a public demonstration when one of the boxes was > sitting on a table. I have a video of it somewhere. This was an older > generation box but similar according to Rossi." > > What makes you think that was rated at 250 kW I

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

As I said earlier, the "costumer" can merely use water to cool down the water and dump it on the sewer. Only Rossi's loop is closed. The other can be open. Another thing is that a blind test can be argued as a way to avoid cheating.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

I got this info from Rossi/s blog, On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > "There were not "52 boxes" there were just four units working." >> >> Rossi had two reactors in the test, a tiger that used 4 250 KW units .

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: > This building is 10,800 sq. ft. >> > > Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was 1,000 sq > meters, which converts to 10763.9 sq feet. > The space occupied by Rossi and the customer is

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: "There were not "52 boxes" there were just four units working." > > Rossi had two reactors in the test, a tiger that used 4 250 KW units . . . > As shown in the drawings and described in the court filing, each of those 4 250-kW units is made up of several

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

"There were not "52 boxes" there were just four units working." Rossi had two reactors in the test, a tiger that used 4 250 KW units, and a older design that served as backup that uses 48 smaller units. The backup was never used. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

WHAT? Sorry, but this isn't what I quoted. Something is playing tricks. Nevermind... Craig On 05/16/2016 07:03 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: On 05/16/2016 06:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was 1,000

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Should have been 1 MW turbine. On May 16, 2016 19:00, "Lennart Thornros" wrote: > I said to you, Jed, that I think my suggested usage is as valid as yours. > BTW I have a great deal of experience from this industry but not as an > engineer/operator. Your very demeaning

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

On 05/16/2016 06:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Not that it changes much, but according to Mats, the building was 1,000 sq meters, which converts to 10763.9 sq feet.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

I said to you, Jed, that I think my suggested usage is as valid as yours. BTW I have a great deal of experience from this industry but not as an engineer/operator. Your very demeaning statements are followed by you very lose claim of expertise in all industrial processes. I know the temperature

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed, "Yes, a woman did, during a public demonstration when one of the boxes was sitting on a table. I have a video of it somewhere. This was an older generation box but similar according to Rossi." What makes you think that was rated at 250 kW I think they were different. Not only that,

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

ERV (Penon) explained it is not important to have access. This is true, why do visitors need to see what is going on inside the factory when the only person whose opinion and control that counts is the ERV. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

"Sure it would be possible. No one disputes that. However, to believe Rossi's instruments and flow rate without verification would be insane, given his track record for doing such measurements wrong. More to the point, not doing a reality check check by going next door and looking at the

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: "You do not have to look next door. Don't look behind that curtain!" > > Who told you that this statement is true about the ERV? A visitor to the > factory? > Rossi said this in the interview by Lewan. It is what I quoted above: "IH never had access to the

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Lennart Thornros wrote: > Jed, there is nobody saying the heat is consumed in the building. > If it was not Florida I could suggest that they used the heat to warm > residential buuldings. The size of such a 'machine' would easily fit (a few > pumps). > Ah ha. Okay. Would

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

1MW is about 2X a heavy duty truck or ~2x F1 cars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines https://cumminsengines.com/isx15-heavy-duty-truck-2013#overview

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

"You do not have to look next door. Don't look behind that curtain!" Who told you that this statement is true about the ERV? A visitor to the factory? On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> IH has place

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

a.ashfield wrote: > There were not "52 boxes" there were just four units working. Look at the drawing and you will see that they are made up of multiple boxes, as described in the lawsuit. As I said, that means there are a lot of metal walls in close contact with the

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed, there is nobody saying the heat is consumed in the building. If it was not Florida I could suggest that they used the heat to warm residential buuldings. The size of such a 'machine' would easily fit (a few pumps). I do not speculate but it is at least as realistic as 100 steam cleaners. None

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: > IH has place trust in the ERV as a judge. > No, they don't, Mr. Imaginary Lawyer. Not when he does a Wizard of Oz act and says: "You do not have to look next door. Don't look behind that curtain!" > If IH believes the the ERV has commented fraud, why

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

No magic here, that's easy to achieve. Cool it down with street water using loops. Efficiency above 95% can be achieved. This is used in coal and nuclear plants. The rest is merely blown away 2016-05-16 19:17 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > If the customer has found a way to

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

The customer must exist as a requirement for the test to be conducted. The customer was not Rossi's requirements it was required by IH. IH verified the customer as a precondition for testing, On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed, There were not "52 boxes" there were just four units working. No one outside of Rossi's camp can have "brushed up against them" and Rossi looked quite comfortable when using s stethoscope on one. Photo center bottom shows them http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/ Rossi spent much of his

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: The customer is a contractual requirement imposed on Rossi by the IG as per > the Licence agreement. Read this agreement to see how the customer fits > into the deal. > If the customer has found a way to fit industrial equipment that consumes 1 MW of process

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

IH has place trust in the ERV as a judge. If IH believes the the ERV has commented fraud, why have they not registered a criminal complaint against the ERV? On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > People(Jed?) have

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: People(Jed?) have criticized that the data was hand written by the ERV, but > this would avoid any computer related data manipulation. > A person can easily manipulate data written by hand! It is easier than manipulating computer data. This takes me back .

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

The customer is a contractual requirement imposed on Rossi by the IG as per the Licence agreement. Read this agreement to see how the customer fits into the deal. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > Somebody

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

People(Jed?) have criticized that the data was hand written by the ERV, but this would avoid any computer related data manipulation. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > I would assume that the ERV would exclude

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: Somebody must have blinded Jed as far as the ability to incorporate new > information into thinking. Rossi spent ALL his time inside an air > conditioned container. This means Rossi WOULD BE NOT DEAD. > I meant if he spent any time in the reactor chamber.

[Vo]:Re: CMNS: CONTRIBUTION FROM V. VYSOTSKII, NEW DISPUTE GENERATOR LAUNCHED<,

The circulating water amounted to 36m^3/day, which gives ~0.41l/s, that's 410g/s. 1g of water needs 4.1J/g to increase 1C, so that quantity of water absorbed ~1700W for every C. Water entered at 60C, so, we have that the liquid part absorbed ~70kW. The latetent heat of water, assuming, 1 atm, is

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: I would assume that the ERV would exclude either party in this test to > participate in the calorimetry.. > You assume wrong, as usual. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

The circulating water amounted to 36m^3/day, which gives ~0.41l/s, that's 410g/s. 1g of water needs 4.1J/g to increase 1C, so that quantity of water absorbed ~1700W for every C. Water entered at 60C, so, we have that the liquid part absorbed ~70kW. The latetent heat of water, assuming, 1 atm, is

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Stephen Cooke wrote: > Have you ever looked at the pictures and technical description of the 1 MW > ecat on this web site? It might save you some confusion. > Do you mean, with regard to the number of units? It says there are 4 units: The ECAT 1MW plant contains 4

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

I would assume that the ERV would exclude either party in this test to participate in the calorimetry.. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I wrote: > > >> Rossi has said that he spent most of the time in the "Computer >>> Container", which was a 9m X

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Somebody must have blinded Jed as far as the ability to incorporate new information into thinking. Rossi spent ALL his time inside an air conditioned container. This means Rossi WOULD BE NOT DEAD. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Hello Jed Have you ever looked at the pictures and technical description of the 1 MW ecat on this web site? It might save you some confusion. http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw Stephen > On 16 mei 2016, at 23:18, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

I wrote: > Rossi has said that he spent most of the time in the "Computer Container", >> which was a 9m X 2.5m X 2.5m container separate from the "Reactor >> Container". >> > > Since Rossi does not use a computer, that is an interesting statement. > I meant that he does not use a computer for

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: We will all be taken to task for our assertions and speculations related to > our credibility shortly as a result of the evidentiary discovery process > that will occur during the trial. > To hell we will! Lewan's interview with Rossi proves that I have been

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: If the Reactor is radiating ten to hundreds of kilowatts of heat, then the > COP produced by the reactor is higher then that measured by the ERV using > water flow. > That is true. If it is radiating hundreds of kilowatts, the COP is higher. That is how

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

We will all be taken to task for our assertions and speculations related to our credibility shortly as a result of the evidentiary discovery process that will occur during the trial. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

I know that Rossi past a lot of time inside the plant at a computer answering questions on his blog. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Robert Dorr wrote: > > >> Rossi has said that he spent most of the time in the "Computer >>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: The buy back exercise would have informed Rossi that IH had developed > nefarious motives that Rossi would be wise to protect himself against. This > may have caused Rossi to begin his accumulation of evidence in anticipation > to a legal fight at the end of

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

If the Reactor is radiating ten to hundreds of kilowatts of heat, then the COP produced by the reactor is higher then that measured by the ERV using water flow. Just this wasted heat could will put the reactor into gainful power production status. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Robert Dorr wrote: > Rossi has said that he spent most of the time in the "Computer Container", > which was a 9m X 2.5m X 2.5m container separate from the "Reactor > Container". > Since Rossi does not use a computer, that is an interesting statement. Peter Gluck says that

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

I wrote: Robert Dorr wrote: > > I have seen pictures of the roof and there were two industrial type fans on >> the roof where the production was taking place. >> > > Actually, sources tell me those are over the reactor, not the production > area. > Oops. I take that back.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

The buy back exercise would have informed Rossi that IH had developed nefarious motives that Rossi would be wise to protect himself against. This may have caused Rossi to begin his accumulation of evidence in anticipation to a legal fight at the end of the test. I would anticipate in such an

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed, Rossi has said that he spent most of the time in the "Computer Container", which was a 9m X 2.5m X 2.5m container separate from the "Reactor Container". Robert Dorr WA7ZQR At 01:50 PM 5/16/2016, you wrote: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: Where did

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: Where did the spin come from that Rossi would have been cooked if Rossi > lived in the reactor container? > This is based on elementary knowledge of heaters. Mats Lewan, the people from NASA and many others observed that these heaters radiate a great deal

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: Rossi's expertice in setting up the test is not material. The licence > agreement specified the the ERV design the test and set it up. IH accepted > Penon to be the ERV. . . . > Ah. Once you have put on your pretend-lawyer hat. Once again I must point out

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: Didn't Gamberale change the instrumentation in the DGT test that DGT put > back? > First he put instrumentation in. Then they took it out. Finally, he measured the flow rate with a bucket and weight scale. Which he should have done months earlier. This is

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Perhaps the output was actively cooled on the "production side". Harry On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Robert Dorr wrote: > > Jed, > > All I was saying was that you don't need anything being produced to confirm > that the proper amount of heat was being produced. Obviously

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Rossi's expertice in setting up the test is not material. The licence agreement specified the the ERV design the test and set it up. IH accepted Penon to be the ERV. The licence agreement also specified that there must be a customer who used the heat and identified who the customer was to be. On

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed: Where did the spin come from that Rossi would have been cooked if Rossi lived in the reactor container? Did you invent that or did IH invent that and told you to popularize it.. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Robert Dorr

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Robert Dorr wrote: > All I was saying was that you don't need anything being produced to > confirm that the proper amount of heat was being produced. > When you are dealing with Rossi, if you take his measurements of heat and flow for granted without confirming them by

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Robert Dorr wrote: > They had two fans over the production area and two fans over the reactor > area. > Not to my knowledge, but perhaps the configuration was changed. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Didn't Gamberale change the instrumentation in the DGT test that DGT put back? On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > >> Doctoring of the instrumentation connected to the reactor under test >> could have been done

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: Exactly what are the problems? > You will see, if I.H. publishes their information. If the case is settled out of court, you may never see what the problems are. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: > Doctoring of the instrumentation connected to the reactor under test could > have been done by either party. The only way to verify valid > instrumentation performance is through sealing it and getting post test > calibration performed by the manufacture.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed, They had two fans over the production area and two fans over the reactor area. Robert Dorr WA7ZQR At 01:19 PM 5/16/2016, you wrote: Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote: I have seen pictures of the roof and there were two industrial type fans on the roof

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Exactly what are the problems? On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > Can you get a photo of the top of the factory building that shows no fan >> driven ventilation on the rood or the factory building? >> > > The

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Robert Dorr wrote: I have seen pictures of the roof and there were two industrial type fans on > the roof where the production was taking place. > Actually, sources tell me those are over the reactor, not the production area. You would need ventilation over both. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed, All I was saying was that you don't need anything being produced to confirm that the proper amount of heat was being produced. Obviously it made I.H. feel better that something was being made with the heat. Why they didn't enter the production side I don't know. I would be surprised

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

The test was designed by the ERV and not Rossi. Doctoring of the instrumentation connected to the reactor under test could have been done by either party. The only way to verify valid instrumentation performance is through sealing it and getting post test calibration performed by the manufacture.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: Can you get a photo of the top of the factory building that shows no fan > driven ventilation on the rood or the factory building? > The Google map overhead view shows considerable detail, but it was probably taken in Feb. 2014. That is when the street view

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil, I have seen pictures of the roof and there were two industrial type fans on the roof where the production was taking place. Robert Dorr WA7ZQR At 01:10 PM 5/16/2016, you wrote: Can you get a photo of the top of the factory building that shows no fan driven ventilation on the rood

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: > The amount of heat used by the customer could have been determined by the > flow rate of water and its temperature of that water as it left the reactor > and re entered the reactor. Is that not the basis of heat > production measurement? > Not, that is

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Can you get a photo of the top of the factory building that shows no fan driven ventilation on the rood or the factory building? On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Robert Dorr wrote: > > >> Get real, the proof is in the flow rates

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Robert Dorr wrote: > Get real, the proof is in the flow rates and the temperature delta. That > is all that is required. > So you would pay $89 million without doing the most obvious test imaginable? Without the most elementary reality check? Even though it is obvious from

[Vo]:Re: Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Folks, you send “water” through a hole in the wall, and back comes something. You can’t assume it’s water. You have to analyze it. Want me to give you a few dozen more examples of this, where you can’t assume? ... Knowing what the customer is doing with the water educates one in what to look

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Heat removal was performed convection and by fan driven air circulation of heat through openings in the roof of the plant. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > In order to meet the 1 MW requirement for heat

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Axil Axil wrote: In order to meet the 1 MW requirement for heat production, the heat > transferred to the customer must have been constant without much > variation...in other words, a constant heat sink. The customer must have > used the heat need it or not in their

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed, Get real, the proof is in the flow rates and the temperature delta. That is all that is required. Robert Dorr WA7ZQR At 12:51 PM 5/16/2016, you wrote: Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote: Jed, Heat is heat. It makes no difference if the heat

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

The amount of heat used by the customer could have been determined by the flow rate of water and its temperature of that water as it left the reactor and re entered the reactor. Is that not the basis of heat production measurement? On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

In order to meet the 1 MW requirement for heat production, the heat transferred to the customer must have been constant without much variation...in other words, a constant heat sink. The customer must have used the heat need it or not in their manufacturing process. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:42

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Robert Dorr wrote: Jed, > > Heat is heat. It makes no difference if the heat (water/steam) was used to > make chemicals or whether it was used to heat the air in the room next door. > Robert, for goodness sake, get real! If they were only releasing the heat in the air in the

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > Confirm, comment on , or deny this statement... > > During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel > it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer > was to give back

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed, Heat is heat. It makes no difference if the heat (water/steam) was used to make chemicals or whether it was used to heat the air in the room next door. To say it has to produce some form of physical process (although just heating air is considered work) is irrelevant and wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Confirm, comment on , or deny this statement... During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Robert Dorr wrote: > Why would it matter what the person using the heat does with it. All you > should be concerned with is the temperature of the out flowing fluid/steam > and it's rate of flow and the temperature of the incoming water and it's > rate of flow. . . . You

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Terry Blanton wrote: > If you just boiled it off into the atmosphere, 1 MW would consume 320,000 > gallons of water in a year. > But, as explained in the interview, the fluid was returned at 60˚C after being used for some mysterious purpose in the customer's 6,500 sq. ft.

  1   2   >