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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 about the reactor container there.
>

I do not think so. I am pretty sure the configuration is two 1-m fans
mounted in the ceiling above the shipping container.  That's what I have
heard from people who saw it. The two fans blow air either into the crawl
space, or up to the vent shown at the top of the building. I don't know
which.

I think Rossi is saying the fans go directly up to the vents which you can
see in the Google overhead view. There is one in each tenant section. I
think when he says "windows in the ceiling" he means the vent. This is a
minor problem with Rossi's English. There are no skylight windows in this
building.

The overhead view is here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8157611,-80.3250736,204m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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 into the reactor is at 60°C according to Rossi,
> and the reactor is producing 1 MW with very hot steam going out through the
> pipes, and there is no ventilation system in the reactor shipping
> container, yet somehow the temperature is 20°C cooler than the return
> water, not to mention the reactor cells and the steam pipes. I suppose
> because the door is open. Even at that, this is an extraordinarily good
> AFUE for a device with this geometry, according to HVAC people I have
> talked to.
>
> I doubt it!
>
> Since there was no excess heat as far as anyone (other than Rossi and
> Penon) can tell, it is perfectly plausible that the temperature was ~40°C.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Patrick Ellul
>
> 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

2016-05-16 Thread Daniel Rocha
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 Rossi and
> Penon) can tell, it is perfectly plausible that the temperature was ~40°C.
>
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Eric Walker
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 taken place or to assume that the ERV was
impartial.  It also shows how adversarial and calculating the relationship
between Leonardo and IH had become by that point, as though two people were
playing chess, without a mote of real trust between them.

Rossi's lawyer may need to amend p. 21 to the license agreement, which lays
out the specs for the 1MW plant, to reflect the change that was introduced
with the switch to the four "tiger" modules, which, presumably will have
been implemented with the written consent of IH. [1]

Eric


[1]
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.21.pdf


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 into the reactor is at 60°C according to Rossi,
and the reactor is producing 1 MW with very hot steam going out through the
pipes, and there is no ventilation system in the reactor shipping
container, yet somehow the temperature is 20°C cooler than the return
water, not to mention the reactor cells and the steam pipes. I suppose
because the door is open. Even at that, this is an extraordinarily good
AFUE for a device with this geometry, according to HVAC people I have
talked to.

I doubt it!

Since there was no excess heat as far as anyone (other than Rossi and
Penon) can tell, it is perfectly plausible that the temperature was ~40°C.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
   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 make this measurement the ERV will measure the flow of the heated fluid
   and the Delta T between the temperature of the fluid before and after the
   E-Cat reaction”.

   Is this the measurement system used in the ERV report?

   Many thanks,

   Frank Acland
   2. Andrea Rossi
   May 16, 2016 at 4:53 PM
   

   Frank Acland:
   I confirm that the ERV has made the measurements coherently with the
   protocol signed in the Agreement between the two parties.
   He made all the measurements with his own certified instrumentation and
   at the end of the test the RRV has himself disconnected and retrieved his
   instrumentetion, to send it to the manufacturers of every instrument to
   re-certify every instrument to be sure that during the test none of them
   has changed the margin of error.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 not the basis -- or not the only basis -- because Rossi has
> made huge mistakes again and again in his calorimetry. His measurements of
> these things is not to be trusted. He nearly killed Jim Dunn and the others
> with his mistakes.
>
> Even if you were inclined to believe Rossi, you would still need to
> confirm the output by examining the customer's equipment. You should also
> use some common sense. It is not possible to use up this much process heat
> in 6,500 sq. ft. You need to find out what is actually happening.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
   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 to inside E-cat container to
   keep it at working conditions…?
   2. Andrea Rossi
   May 16, 2016 at 6:10 PM
   

   Oystein Lande:
   1- No, we had two containers, one with the control systems, one with the
   E-Cats
   2- In the E-Cat container there was no air conditioned, because inside
   that container the temperature was the same you have in any industrial
   thermic central.
   The temperature was warm obviously, but not too much, because all the
   hot parts were well insulated, also to conserve the energy. Reactors, steam
   pipes and water pipes were very well insulated.
   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.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 calorimetry always works. You never capture all the heat in the
> flow. However, it is not radiating hundreds of kilowatts because if it
> were, Rossi WOULD BE DEAD. He would be cooked.
>
> Got it? Dead! Passed on! No more! Ceased to be! Expired and gone to meet
> 'is maker! Bereft of life. Rests in peace! His metabolic processes are now
> history! Kicked the bucket, Shuffled off his mortal coil.
>
>
>
>> Just this wasted heat could will put the reactor into gainful power
>> production status.
>>
>
> Yes if only this were real heat instead of imaginary heat, you could add
> it to the tally. Unfortunately, all of the real heat equals the input
> power, and nothing more.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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

2016-05-16 Thread Daniel Rocha
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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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 in. How would that enhance Rossi's ability to
> cheat? The cheating would be done by whoever set up the factory. Who, as it
> happens, is Rossi's lawyer, as I said. If you knew Rossi's lawyer set up a
> factory the no one was allowed to go into, in a business which cannot
> possibly use 1 MW of process heat, in a closed space that cannot possibly
> use it, would that you give you confidence it is all the up and up, nothing
> to see here, keep moving folks? Or would you be suspicious?
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 in. How would that enhance Rossi's ability to
cheat? The cheating would be done by whoever set up the factory. Who, as it
happens, is Rossi's lawyer, as I said. If you knew Rossi's lawyer set up a
factory the no one was allowed to go into, in a business which cannot
possibly use 1 MW of process heat, in a closed space that cannot possibly
use it, would that you give you confidence it is all the up and up, nothing
to see here, keep moving folks? Or would you be suspicious?

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
   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
   backups, rather than lots of smaller E-Cats?

   Kind regards,

   Frank Acland
   2. Andrea Rossi
   August 5th, 2015 at 5:01 PM
   

   Frank Acland:
   Yes, because they will be born in that perspective. Probably, from now
   on the industrial E-Cat will be made by 250 kW modules, as a consequence of
   the tests on course, provided the same tests will give positive results at
   the end of this 350 days cycle.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

>
>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 thanks,
>
>Frank Acland
>2. Andrea Rossi
>September 19th, 2015 at 10:11 PM
>
>
>Frank Acland:
>Not yet.
>Warm Regards,
>A.R.
>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>
>> http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw
>>
>> You see that each of the 4 large blocks on the 4 shelves has 6 red
>> controllers at the end, and I think 13 units in the block. I saw a fairly
>> recent photo of Rossi in a shipping container. The controllers looked like
>> this. I could not see the blocks as clearly but there a number of them on
>> the face of the unit.
>>
>> The drawing at ecat.com may not be exactly up to date, or it might show
>> a future version. I don't know. But the machine I saw in a photo looked a
>> lot like this. 4 units subdivided into 13 sections each.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
   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 thanks,

   Frank Acland
   2. Andrea Rossi
   September 19th, 2015 at 10:11 PM
   

   Frank Acland:
   Not yet.
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.


On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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:
>
> http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw
>
> You see that each of the 4 large blocks on the 4 shelves has 6 red
> controllers at the end, and I think 13 units in the block. I saw a fairly
> recent photo of Rossi in a shipping container. The controllers looked like
> this. I could not see the blocks as clearly but there a number of them on
> the face of the unit.
>
> The drawing at ecat.com may not be exactly up to date, or it might show a
> future version. I don't know. But the machine I saw in a photo looked a lot
> like this. 4 units subdivided into 13 sections each.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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:

http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw

You see that each of the 4 large blocks on the 4 shelves has 6 red
controllers at the end, and I think 13 units in the block. I saw a fairly
recent photo of Rossi in a shipping container. The controllers looked like
this. I could not see the blocks as clearly but there a number of them on
the face of the unit.

The drawing at ecat.com may not be exactly up to date, or it might show a
future version. I don't know. But the machine I saw in a photo looked a lot
like this. 4 units subdivided into 13 sections each.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Daniel Rocha
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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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

2016-05-16 Thread Jack Cole
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.  He goes to Sweden  allegedly to
attempt to find a building for a factory and visits with the professors and
Mats while there.  The factory building is actually part of the scheme to
convince both Mats and the professors of just how serious Rossi is about
moving forward (who tries to buy a factory if he is only interested in
bilking 267 million dollars from IH?).  He's got to keep the Lugano profs
from jumping ship because he may lose the 11 M in addition to fatally
damaging his case were they to do the right thing and retract their paper.
Mats is a wildcard, because he could end up being objective despite having
invested so much time and effort in following Rossi.  Rossi can't risk
losing Mats' support, so a rare personal visit was in order.




On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:48 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> This got left off my original post.
>
> Read Mats full report here.
>
>
> 
> https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 insist on seeing where the heat goes, and how much water it
takes to take it away.



> Another thing is that a blind test can be argued as a way to avoid
> cheating.
>

No, actually, it makes it much easier to cheat. In no way, shape or form
does hiding the factory make it harder to cheat.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 think they were
> different.  Not only that, the insulation for the plant may have been
> different.


That was an older version of one of the 13 units which are now put together
to form the 250 kW unit. See the drawing and lawsuit.




> "Actually he told me that. Several people who have visited him confirmed
> it."
>
> So you are saying someone else writes his emails not only on his blog but
> to Cook with whom he is collaborating?
>

I am saying he does not use computers. He uses manual log books. That's
what he told me, and others have told me.



> I designed an all ectric glass melter that produces 1.5 t/day that is
> about the size of your desk.
>

What is the unit "t"?



> "All factory equipment of this nature must list such specifications by
> law. You have to show electric power consumption,..."
>
> Not so.  Said furnace had no name plate at all.
>

Commercial equipment all has name plates.

Did you put this machine in a closed room, in a factory that no one is
allowed into? Did it have 1 or 2 1-meter fans (at most) to cool it?

If you put a 1 MW machine in an open bay like a truck being tested, or a
kiln or blast furnace, then of course you can fit it into a small space. If
you have intense ventilation such as in a ship engine room, you can put a
108,920 HP (81 MW) motor in an enclosed space with people working in close
proximity. Like this:

http://www.trucktrend.com/cool-trucks/1405-maersk-e-class-container-ships/#photo-04

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Daniel Rocha
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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 . . .
>>
>
> As shown in the drawings and described in the court filing, each of those
> 4 250-kW units is made up of several small units.
>
> You don't believe me? Look it up!
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 1,000 sq. meters, which --
as you say -- is 10,764 sq. feet.

I got that somewhat wrong by the way. The combined Rossi + customer space
is 10,763, but the entire building is bigger. I printed the Google map
display and used the 200 foot scale to measure the size of the whole
building. As I said, it is 347' by 152', total 52,744 sq. ft.

It takes about 216,000 BTU to heat the 10,764 sq. feet. That's 63 kW. The
whole building takes 1,054,880 BTU, 309 kW. So the Rossi gadget would be
good for 3 entire buildings of this size.

1 MW = 3,414,425 BTU

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 small units.

You don't believe me? Look it up!

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
"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  wrote:

> 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 nickel and the heaters.
>
>
>
>> No one outside of Rossi's camp can have "brushed up against them"
>
>
> 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.
>
> Mats Lewan provided the video, as I recall. He was there.
>
> That box was also under insulation but it was pretty hot. Mats measured
> the surface temperature. I do not recall what it was, but it was hot.
>
>
> Rossi spent much of his time in the computer container that had a 3KW air
>> conditioner.  Where did you get the idea Rossi never used a computer?
>>
>
> Actually he told me that. Several people who have visited him confirmed it.
>
>
>
>> I agree with Robert Door that it should be possible to measure the
>> performance of the plant by measuring the flow rate of the water and
>> depending on the temperature of the output, if appreciably above 100C as
>> steam . . .
>
>
> 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 industrial equipment would be the very height of insanity and
> irresponsibility under these circumstances. Would you really pay $89
> million without doing that?
>
>
>
>> No one knows the JM Products process that could well have been
>> proprietary.
>
>
> Whatever process it may be, since it consumes 1 MW of process heat, I am
> quite sure you cannot fit it into 6,500 sq. ft.
>
>
>
>>   A specially made piece of equipment would be unlikely to have a name
>> plate giving the specifications.
>
>
> All factory equipment of this nature must list such specifications by law.
> You have to show electric power consumption, steam or process heat
> consumption both minimum and maximum, pressure ranges, etc. Look at the
> on-line specifications for dry cleaning steam equipment, kilns, building
> heaters, food processing equipment, etc.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Craig Haynie

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 sq meters, which converts to 10763.9 sq feet.


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/ 



Craig





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

2016-05-16 Thread Lennart Thornros
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 statements are followed by you very
> lose claim of expertise in all industrial processes.
> I know the temperature is off but a 1MW could sit in the area. You are
> just sending poorly substantiated 'truth' based on your experience for as
> to swallow although unlike Mats you are jnable to mention your source and
> how they convinced you.
> I do not understand your anger and demeanor. Not a sound exchange of
> argument. That is regardless if you are right or wrong.
> On May 16, 2016 18:47, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:
>
> 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 you like to do a reality check on that? Maybe think
> about it?
>
> This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Builders recommend 20 BTU per square foot.
> That's 63 kW. The heater supposedly produces 1000 kW, so it is enough for
> sixteen buildings of this size. Do you think there are pipes running out of
> the building in some kind of district heating scheme? Do you think the
> state of Florida would allow that without an investigation or precedent?
> Steam running in pipes suspended over the street perhaps?
>
>
> I do not speculate but it is at least as realistic as 100 steam cleaners.
>>
> On the other hand, you might spend some time reading about industrial
> equipment and how much process heat it takes. That is, if you would like to
> ground your assertions in reality.
>
> I am not speculating. I am telling you how things actually work here in
> the real world, and how much heat it takes to heat a building. You could
> have looked that up yourself.
>
>
> To put it another way --
>
> The customer's facility is 6,500 sq. ft. This is enough heat to heat
> 170,607 sq. ft (at 20 BTU/sq. ft.). When you use process heat, nearly all
> of the heat eventually comes out. Only a little is absorbed in whatever
> endothermic process you are doing. So this is how much heat you use for
> space heating in an area 26 times larger than this. Does anyone think that
> 2 exhaust fans would be sufficient to keep that area safe for human
> occupation? Have you ever been in a hot building?
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Craig Haynie


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.


https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

Craig



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

2016-05-16 Thread Lennart Thornros
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 is off but a 1MW could sit in the area. You are just
sending poorly substantiated 'truth' based on your experience for as to
swallow although unlike Mats you are jnable to mention your source and how
they convinced you.
I do not understand your anger and demeanor. Not a sound exchange of
argument. That is regardless if you are right or wrong.
On May 16, 2016 18:47, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

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 you like to do a reality check on that? Maybe think
about it?

This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Builders recommend 20 BTU per square foot.
That's 63 kW. The heater supposedly produces 1000 kW, so it is enough for
sixteen buildings of this size. Do you think there are pipes running out of
the building in some kind of district heating scheme? Do you think the
state of Florida would allow that without an investigation or precedent?
Steam running in pipes suspended over the street perhaps?


I do not speculate but it is at least as realistic as 100 steam cleaners.
>
On the other hand, you might spend some time reading about industrial
equipment and how much process heat it takes. That is, if you would like to
ground your assertions in reality.

I am not speculating. I am telling you how things actually work here in the
real world, and how much heat it takes to heat a building. You could have
looked that up yourself.


To put it another way --

The customer's facility is 6,500 sq. ft. This is enough heat to heat
170,607 sq. ft (at 20 BTU/sq. ft.). When you use process heat, nearly all
of the heat eventually comes out. Only a little is absorbed in whatever
endothermic process you are doing. So this is how much heat you use for
space heating in an area 26 times larger than this. Does anyone think that
2 exhaust fans would be sufficient to keep that area safe for human
occupation? Have you ever been in a hot building?

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread a.ashfield

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, the insulation for the plant may have been 
different.


"Actually he told me that. Several people who have visited him confirmed 
it."


So you are saying someone else writes his emails not only on his blog 
but to Cook with whom he is collaborating?
That he doesn't follow the links he says he does nor use the internet to 
lookup things?


"Whatever process it may be, since it consumes 1 MW of process heat, I 
am quite sure you cannot fit it into 6,500 sq. ft."


I designed an all ectric glass melter that produces 1.5 t/day that is 
about the size of your desk.


"All factory equipment of this nature must list such specifications by 
law. You have to show electric power consumption,..."


Not so.  Said furnace had no name plate at all.



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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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  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 customer’s area. At the end of the test, an
> expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water
> came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no
> importance."
>
> Rossi said they never had access, and the ERV (Penon) explained it is not
> important to have access.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
"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 industrial equipment would be the very height of insanity and
irresponsibility under these circumstances. Would you really pay $89
million without doing that?"

This is what is know as SPIN.

The test was under control of the ERV not Rossi, The instruments were
sealed,  Who was not allowed to inspect the factory and who restricted this
inspection?

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 nickel and the heaters.
>
>
>
>> No one outside of Rossi's camp can have "brushed up against them"
>
>
> 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.
>
> Mats Lewan provided the video, as I recall. He was there.
>
> That box was also under insulation but it was pretty hot. Mats measured
> the surface temperature. I do not recall what it was, but it was hot.
>
>
> Rossi spent much of his time in the computer container that had a 3KW air
>> conditioner.  Where did you get the idea Rossi never used a computer?
>>
>
> Actually he told me that. Several people who have visited him confirmed it.
>
>
>
>> I agree with Robert Door that it should be possible to measure the
>> performance of the plant by measuring the flow rate of the water and
>> depending on the temperature of the output, if appreciably above 100C as
>> steam . . .
>
>
> 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 industrial equipment would be the very height of insanity and
> irresponsibility under these circumstances. Would you really pay $89
> million without doing that?
>
>
>
>> No one knows the JM Products process that could well have been
>> proprietary.
>
>
> Whatever process it may be, since it consumes 1 MW of process heat, I am
> quite sure you cannot fit it into 6,500 sq. ft.
>
>
>
>>   A specially made piece of equipment would be unlikely to have a name
>> plate giving the specifications.
>
>
> All factory equipment of this nature must list such specifications by law.
> You have to show electric power consumption, steam or process heat
> consumption both minimum and maximum, pressure ranges, etc. Look at the
> on-line specifications for dry cleaning steam equipment, kilns, building
> heaters, food processing equipment, etc.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 customer’s area. At the end of the test, an
expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water
came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no
importance."

Rossi said they never had access, and the ERV (Penon) explained it is not
important to have access.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 you like to do a reality check on that? Maybe think
about it?

This building is 10,800 sq. ft. Builders recommend 20 BTU per square foot.
That's 63 kW. The heater supposedly produces 1000 kW, so it is enough for
sixteen buildings of this size. Do you think there are pipes running out of
the building in some kind of district heating scheme? Do you think the
state of Florida would allow that without an investigation or precedent?
Steam running in pipes suspended over the street perhaps?


I do not speculate but it is at least as realistic as 100 steam cleaners.
>
On the other hand, you might spend some time reading about industrial
equipment and how much process heat it takes. That is, if you would like to
ground your assertions in reality.

I am not speculating. I am telling you how things actually work here in the
real world, and how much heat it takes to heat a building. You could have
looked that up yourself.


To put it another way --

The customer's facility is 6,500 sq. ft. This is enough heat to heat
170,607 sq. ft (at 20 BTU/sq. ft.). When you use process heat, nearly all
of the heat eventually comes out. Only a little is absorbed in whatever
endothermic process you are doing. So this is how much heat you use for
space heating in an area 26 times larger than this. Does anyone think that
2 exhaust fans would be sufficient to keep that area safe for human
occupation? Have you ever been in a hot building?

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Daniel Rocha
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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
"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 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 have they not
>> registered a criminal complaint against the ERV?
>>
>
> Only the police or D.A. can register a criminal complaint. Civilians such
> as you or I can report a crime. It is up to the police register it or
> pursue it.
>
> You are an imaginary lawyer. You should know that!
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 nickel and the heaters.



> No one outside of Rossi's camp can have "brushed up against them"


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.

Mats Lewan provided the video, as I recall. He was there.

That box was also under insulation but it was pretty hot. Mats measured the
surface temperature. I do not recall what it was, but it was hot.


Rossi spent much of his time in the computer container that had a 3KW air
> conditioner.  Where did you get the idea Rossi never used a computer?
>

Actually he told me that. Several people who have visited him confirmed it.



> I agree with Robert Door that it should be possible to measure the
> performance of the plant by measuring the flow rate of the water and
> depending on the temperature of the output, if appreciably above 100C as
> steam . . .


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 industrial equipment would be the very height of insanity and
irresponsibility under these circumstances. Would you really pay $89
million without doing that?



> No one knows the JM Products process that could well have been proprietary.


Whatever process it may be, since it consumes 1 MW of process heat, I am
quite sure you cannot fit it into 6,500 sq. ft.



>   A specially made piece of equipment would be unlikely to have a name
> plate giving the specifications.


All factory equipment of this nature must list such specifications by law.
You have to show electric power consumption, steam or process heat
consumption both minimum and maximum, pressure ranges, etc. Look at the
on-line specifications for dry cleaning steam equipment, kilns, building
heaters, food processing equipment, etc.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Lennart Thornros
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 of them are right and that is not the problem.
Money is the peoblem. How and by whom I do not know.  I think IH stands to
lose credibility by not come out with a statement that at least make
Rossi's statement to Mats look less convincing.
On May 16, 2016 18:09, "Jed Rothwell"  wrote:

> 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 . . . to a stroll down memory lane.
>
> Back in the days when bookkeepers at companies and banks kept data by
> hand, they often embezzled money by entering fake numbers into the ledgers.
> Often they would do this by keeping two sets of books, a fake one, and a
> real one which was hidden. When computers were first introduced, embezzlers
> tried using similar methods. Programmers soon learned how to defeat them.
>
> I began programming in 1978 in some accounting applications. Programmers
> were then in the last stages of defeating the old manual methods of
> embezzling and cooking the books. I heard a lot about it. The crooks had
> also learned some new computer-based methods of stealing, such as the
> salami slice technique and ZZubrinski, Z., which were a lot of fun to learn
> about.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 have they not
> registered a criminal complaint against the ERV?
>

Only the police or D.A. can register a criminal complaint. Civilians such
as you or I can report a crime. It is up to the police register it or
pursue it.

You are an imaginary lawyer. You should know that!

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Daniel Rocha
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 fit industrial equipment that consumes
> 1 MW of process heat into 6,500 sq. ft. the customer is either a magician,
> an extraterrestrial, or dead. My guess is . . .  the customer
> does not exist. The customer is a figment of Rossi's lawyer's imagination.
> (Rossi's lawyer set up the company, overnight, on demand, hey presto!)
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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  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 heat into 6,500 sq. ft. the customer is either a magician,
> an extraterrestrial, or dead. My guess is . . .  the customer
> does not exist. The customer is a figment of Rossi's lawyer's imagination.
> (Rossi's lawyer set up the company, overnight, on demand, hey presto!)
>
> That's just a guess! No one told me that.
>
> You need to stop believing impossible bullshit spouted by Rossi. You need
> to stop, think and use some common sense.
>
> I wish Mats Lewan would stop for a moment, and ask some common sense
> questions to Rossi. Imagine printing that statement "The ERV explained that
> this had no importance" without comment, response, or question. What was
> Mats thinking?!? Who would say that?
>
> There are a dozen other absurdities in the interview. I get a headache
> just thinking about them.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread a.ashfield

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 time in the computer container that had a 3KW 
air conditioner.  Where did you get the idea Rossi never used a computer?


I agree with Robert Door that it should be possible to measure the 
performance of the plant by measuring the flow rate of the water and 
depending on the temperature of the output, if appreciably above 100C as 
steam, if not by some other means to determine the wetness fraction.  
According to Mats, Rossi said ignore the temperature of the input water 
and take 10% off the measured output to be conservative.  That is to 
say, he only counted the latent heat of evaporation, not the preheat of 
the water.


No one knows the JM Products process that could well have been 
proprietary.  A specially made piece of equipment would be unlikely to 
have a name plate giving the specifications.  Just looking at the 20 x 3 
x3 M box would tell you nothing about the amount of heat used.  So I 
doubt if that would have helped much.


Like you, I would probably have carried out some simple tests to check 
the instrumentation.  But it seems Penon was satisfied and both IH & 
Rossi watched the instrumentation being installed and after being sent 
away to have the calibrations checked.  Until proven otherwise I have no 
reason to doubt the measurements.  I think you protest too much.




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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 heat into 6,500 sq. ft. the customer is either a magician, an
extraterrestrial, or dead. My guess is . . .  the customer does
not exist. The customer is a figment of Rossi's lawyer's imagination.
(Rossi's lawyer set up the company, overnight, on demand, hey presto!)

That's just a guess! No one told me that.

You need to stop believing impossible bullshit spouted by Rossi. You need
to stop, think and use some common sense.

I wish Mats Lewan would stop for a moment, and ask some common sense
questions to Rossi. Imagine printing that statement "The ERV explained that
this had no importance" without comment, response, or question. What was
Mats thinking?!? Who would say that?

There are a dozen other absurdities in the interview. I get a headache just
thinking about them.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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 . . . to a stroll down memory lane.
>
> Back in the days when bookkeepers at companies and banks kept data by
> hand, they often embezzled money by entering fake numbers into the ledgers.
> Often they would do this by keeping two sets of books, a fake one, and a
> real one which was hidden. When computers were first introduced, embezzlers
> tried using similar methods. Programmers soon learned how to defeat them.
>
> I began programming in 1978 in some accounting applications. Programmers
> were then in the last stages of defeating the old manual methods of
> embezzling and cooking the books. I heard a lot about it. The crooks had
> also learned some new computer-based methods of stealing, such as the
> salami slice technique and ZZubrinski, Z., which were a lot of fun to learn
> about.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 . . . to a stroll down memory lane.

Back in the days when bookkeepers at companies and banks kept data by hand,
they often embezzled money by entering fake numbers into the ledgers. Often
they would do this by keeping two sets of books, a fake one, and a real one
which was hidden. When computers were first introduced, embezzlers tried
using similar methods. Programmers soon learned how to defeat them.

I began programming in 1978 in some accounting applications. Programmers
were then in the last stages of defeating the old manual methods of
embezzling and cooking the books. I heard a lot about it. The crooks had
also learned some new computer-based methods of stealing, such as the
salami slice technique and ZZubrinski, Z., which were a lot of fun to learn
about.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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. For that matter, with
> the 1 MW heat release next door, the dozens of imaginary people who are
> working there day and night with the imaginary factory equipment which
> cannot fit would also be dead from the heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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. For that matter, with
the 1 MW heat release next door, the dozens of imaginary people who are
working there day and night with the imaginary factory equipment which
cannot fit would also be dead from the heat.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Daniel Rocha
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 ~2.3MJ/kg. So, 410g/s of water can absorb ~930kW by completely
vaporizing.

So, we have that an amazing coincidence 1MW (~70kW + ~930) is nearly
*exactly* what is needed to vaporize the flux in the circuit. Water has
18g/mol and 1 mol of steam gives 22.5l. We have 512l/s of steam out of the
heater. The machine has the dimensions of 20x3x3m^3=180m^3 or 180,000l.
There can be probably space for cooling. I'd use water street to cool it
down (and heat the building, for example) and fans to cool the room.
Otherwise, probably the water is high pressurized and bubbling.


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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

2016-05-16 Thread Daniel Rocha
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 ~2.3MJ/kg. So, 410g/s of water can absorb ~930kW by completely
vaporizing.

So, we have that an amazing coincidence 1MW (~70kW + ~930) is nearly
*exactly* what is needed to vaporize the flux in the circuit. Water has
18g/mol and 1 mol of steam gives 22.5l. We have 512l/s of steam out of the
heater. The machine has the dimensions of 20x3x3m^3=180m^3 or 180,000l.
There can be probably space for cooling. I'd use water street to cool it
down (and heat the building, for example) and fans to cool the room.
Otherwise, probably the water is high pressurized and bubbling.


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 ECAT modules of 250kW each mounted in a
> shipping container. Warranty for functionality is two years with a
> guaranteed COP of 6, and the plant has an expected life span of 20 years.


The lawsuit says there are 52. If you look at those drawings, you see that
each of the 4 banks is made up of several units ganged together. 13, I
think. I am not sure that drawing is an accurate representation of the
present configuration, but think it is generally right.

Anyway, there are lots of small reactors with lots of surface area and
pipes running between them. Even though they are ganged together, there are
still lots of metal walls within each of the 4 units. The reactant nickel
powder and electric heaters are in contact with the inner wall of each of
those reactors, and not surrounded by much water (because the boxes are
small), so great deal of heat will be conducted to the walls.

This may be a more efficient heat transfer method than the early version of
the reactor, which had several boxes on shelves. But I do not think the
AFUE will be as good as it is with a modern, high-efficiency heater; 90%
too 99%. See:

http://energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers

I am still guessing it is down around 80%. But I wouldn't know. Some people
understand this much better than I do also estimated 70% to 80%.

The fact that this is not a particularly efficient boiler is of no
importance to the technology. This is just a prototype. A more efficient
version could easily be designed. However, this does mean that a great deal
of waste heat will be generated by the 52 units, and it will heat up the
shipping container.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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 his calorimetry, to monitor
> the test. Several people have noted this in various online blab-groups.
>
> He does use a computer to communicate on the Internet in his blog. Often!
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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  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 calorimetry always works. You never capture all the heat in the
> flow. However, it is not radiating hundreds of kilowatts because if it
> were, Rossi WOULD BE DEAD. He would be cooked.
>
> Got it? Dead! Passed on! No more! Ceased to be! Expired and gone to meet
> 'is maker! Bereft of life. Rests in peace! His metabolic processes are now
> history! Kicked the bucket, Shuffled off his mortal coil.
>
>
>
>> Just this wasted heat could will put the reactor into gainful power
>> production status.
>>
>
> Yes if only this were real heat instead of imaginary heat, you could add
> it to the tally. Unfortunately, all of the real heat equals the input
> power, and nothing more.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Stephen Cooke
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  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 right 
> all along when I said Penon is an idiot and Rossi's methods are insane. 
> Anyone who would even suggest they should not investigate the customer 
> equipment is either crazy or a blatant fraud. This is as clear as it was when 
> Defkalion refused to allow DE to measure the flow rate, and kept tearing out 
> their instruments.
> 
> That one statement is all you need to know to see that this is game over, and 
> the test was a debacle.
> 
> - Jed
> 


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 his calorimetry, to monitor the
test. Several people have noted this in various online blab-groups.

He does use a computer to communicate on the Internet in his blog. Often!

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 right
all along when I said Penon is an idiot and Rossi's methods are insane.
Anyone who would even suggest they should not investigate the customer
equipment is either crazy or a blatant fraud. This is as clear as it was
when Defkalion refused to allow DE to measure the flow rate, and kept
tearing out their instruments.

That one statement is all you need to know to see that this is game over,
and the test was a debacle.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 calorimetry always works. You never capture all the heat in the
flow. However, it is not radiating hundreds of kilowatts because if it
were, Rossi WOULD BE DEAD. He would be cooked.

Got it? Dead! Passed on! No more! Ceased to be! Expired and gone to meet
'is maker! Bereft of life. Rests in peace! His metabolic processes are now
history! Kicked the bucket, Shuffled off his mortal coil.



> Just this wasted heat could will put the reactor into gainful power
> production status.
>

Yes if only this were real heat instead of imaginary heat, you could add it
to the tally. Unfortunately, all of the real heat equals the input power,
and nothing more.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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  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 the test. I would anticipate in such an
>> hostile environment, Rossi was under the guidance of his lawyer from very
>> early on in the test. The Rossi lawyer must have advised Rossi to record
>> all conversations and transaction in preparation for the trial. This may be
>> where the 18 books came from.
>>
>
> Goodness! Are you a fly on the wall as well as a pretend lawyer?!?
>
> Where did you get this information? From Rossi's blog perhaps?
>
> It is astounding how much you know.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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
>> 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 Rossi spent a lot of time in the reactor shipping
> container. I have not read Rossi's blog in many years so I wouldn't know
> about this.
>
> People who have been in the shipping container during the test tell me it
> is not very hot.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 the test. I would anticipate in such an
> hostile environment, Rossi was under the guidance of his lawyer from very
> early on in the test. The Rossi lawyer must have advised Rossi to record
> all conversations and transaction in preparation for the trial. This may be
> where the 18 books came from.
>

Goodness! Are you a fly on the wall as well as a pretend lawyer?!?

Where did you get this information? From Rossi's blog perhaps?

It is astounding how much you know.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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  wrote:

> 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
> of heat, even though they are wrapped in insulation. A video shows that a
> person who brushed up against one was burned and jumped back in pain. There
> are 52 of them. If they really are producing a megawatt of heat there is no
> doubt several hundred kilowatts are being radiated into the box, making it
> a large hot oven. This would also make the whole room too hot to survive
> in, and even with two overhead 1 m vent fans.
>
> Furthermore, much of the heat is retained by the reactor. This is
> confirmed in the latest latest interview. Rossi says the water comes back
> at 60°C. It is not vented as steam by the customer.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 Rossi spent a lot of time in the reactor shipping
container. I have not read Rossi's blog in many years so I wouldn't know
about this.

People who have been in the shipping container during the test tell me it
is not very hot.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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. The fans I heard about would not be visible from
the roof. You would only see the exhaust vent. As you see from the photo,
all 8 of the tenant spaces in the building have vents already.

I do not know about the ones Robert Dorr saw. I have not seen that photo.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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
hostile environment, Rossi was under the guidance of his lawyer from very
early on in the test. The Rossi lawyer must have advised Rossi to record
all conversations and transaction in preparation for the trial. This may be
where the 18 books came from. This also may be why the IH personnel worked
at arms length without Rossi's help during the test. This is why Rossi made
sure that IH workers did not see any new IP development that Rossi produced
at the end of the year.

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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
> of heat, even though they are wrapped in insulation. A video shows that a
> person who brushed up against one was burned and jumped back in pain. There
> are 52 of them. If they really are producing a megawatt of heat there is no
> doubt several hundred kilowatts are being radiated into the box, making it
> a large hot oven. This would also make the whole room too hot to survive
> in, and even with two overhead 1 m vent fans.
>
> Furthermore, much of the heat is retained by the reactor. This is
> confirmed in the latest latest interview. Rossi says the water comes back
> at 60°C. It is not vented as steam by the customer.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Robert Dorr


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 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 of heat, even though they are 
wrapped in insulation. A video shows that a 
person who brushed up against one was burned and 
jumped back in pain. There are 52 of them. If 
they really are producing a megawatt of heat 
there is no doubt several hundred kilowatts are 
being radiated into the box, making it a large 
hot oven. This would also make the whole room 
too hot to survive in, and even with two overhead 1 m vent fans.


Furthermore, much of the heat is retained by the 
reactor. This is confirmed in the latest latest 
interview. Rossi says the water comes back at 
60°C. It is not vented as steam by the customer.


- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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
of heat, even though they are wrapped in insulation. A video shows that a
person who brushed up against one was burned and jumped back in pain. There
are 52 of them. If they really are producing a megawatt of heat there is no
doubt several hundred kilowatts are being radiated into the box, making it
a large hot oven. This would also make the whole room too hot to survive
in, and even with two overhead 1 m vent fans.

Furthermore, much of the heat is retained by the reactor. This is confirmed
in the latest latest interview. Rossi says the water comes back at 60°C. It
is not vented as steam by the customer.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 that every real lawyer has told me you are wrong about that. This is
not just wrong, it is nonsense.

If you are lawyer, I suppose you got your degree at Walmart.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 what I told Defkalion I would do the moment I arrived. That is why
they cancelled my trip. I am sure it is also why Rossi canceled my trip.
These people do not want anyone confirming their claims by
industry-standard methods. That is one of the reasons you should not trust
them.

This is the industry standard method. It is described in Florida statutes
for boiler testing. If you are a licensed HVAC engineer, and you fail to do
this, they will take away your license.

Gamberale tried various other methods to confirm the measurements. He was
thwarted by Defkalion at every stage. Here is what he wrote:

During the setup of the laboratory in Milan various improvements were
> introduced by the DE technicians and scientists concerning the calorimetry
> measurement. In particular a method independent of the flow rate
> measurement has been developed based on the heating of a large amount of
> water contained in a large tank and circulated through a pump in a closed
> circuit. This measure is independent of the measurement of the flow through
> the coil and it would remove any doubt about the heat measurement. DGT did
> not allow DE to use such measurement in any of the tests of their
> technology. As a further improvement we added a second flowmeter upstream
> of the water system in order to verify the behavior of the main flowmeter
> during the measurement of the excess power but also in this case the added
> flowmeter was readily removed by the DGT technicians forbidding us to make
> any verification.


The report goes on to say they reproduced the problem with backflow. It
does not say they went ahead and measured the flow with a bucket, but I
believe he told me they did. He describes how they reproduced the problem
in a footnote:

In the tests carried out by DE [Gambarale et al.], also the DE scientists,
> once they understood the oscillation mechanism, were able to obtain a
> measure of (overestimated) heat produced for a period of time of about one
> hour a few times greater than the electrical energy input, irrespective of
> the presence of the powder inside the reactor and of the type of gas used
> (H2 or Ar).


- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread H LV
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 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 if they were
> actually prevented from entering the premises, but maybe they were. They
> approved the manufacturer according to the contract so they knew what was
> being produced. I'm sure we will find out when it gets to court.
>
> Robert Dorr
> WA7ZQR
>
> At 01:06 PM 5/16/2016, you wrote:
>
> Robert Dorr  wrote:
> Â
> 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
> the floor plan, the outward appearance of the building, overhead photos,
> local zoning regulations, and much else that there cannot possibly be
> industrial equipment next door using this much heat. You would just ignore
> all that and write a check?
>
> Even if you want to stick to flow rates and temperatures, you would be
> risking your life to believe Rossi. He has demonstrated on many occasions
> that he is incapable of measuring flow rates and temperatures correctly. He
> almost killed the people from NASA doing that wrong. I would not go into the
> room where he is conducting an experiment if all I had was his measurements
> of flow and temperature.
>
> - Jed



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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 every possible means, you are
> likely to get your head blown off in an explosion. Ask Jim Dunn and the
> people from NASA if you don't believe me.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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  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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 every possible means, you are
likely to get your head blown off in an explosion. Ask Jim Dunn and the
people from NASA if you don't believe me.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 by either party. The only way to verify valid
>> instrumentation performance is through sealing it and getting post test
>> calibration performed by the manufacture.
>>
>
> That is nonsense. You can verify the instrumentation in 10 minutes using a
> hand-held thermocouple, a bucket and a weight scale. I have done that many
> times. It is a piece of cake.
>
> When I said I would do that with Rossi's original tests he immediately
> uninvited me. When I said I would do that at Defkalion, they immediately
> uninvited me. A pattern emerges . . . When Gamberale finally did that
> later, he immediately saw that the flowmeter was set up incorrectly and the
> test results were wrong. There was no excess heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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.
>

That is nonsense. You can verify the instrumentation in 10 minutes using a
hand-held thermocouple, a bucket and a weight scale. I have done that many
times. It is a piece of cake.

When I said I would do that with Rossi's original tests he immediately
uninvited me. When I said I would do that at Defkalion, they immediately
uninvited me. A pattern emerges . . . When Gamberale finally did that
later, he immediately saw that the flowmeter was set up incorrectly and the
test results were wrong. There was no excess heat.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Robert Dorr



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 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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 Google map overhead view shows considerable detail, but it was
> probably taken in Feb. 2014. That is when the street view photos were
> taken. See:
>
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8157611,-80.3250736,204m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
>
> You would have to make a chimney straight through the roof of the building
> to the outside. You could not exhaust the heat into the crawl space as is
> sometimes done.
>
>
> Let me say only that other people have examined the building recently and
> confirmed there are problems.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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

2016-05-16 Thread Robert Dorr


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 if they were actually prevented from 
entering the premises, but maybe they were. They 
approved the manufacturer according to the 
contract so they knew what was being produced. 
I'm sure we will find out when it gets to court.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR

At 01:06 PM 5/16/2016, you wrote:

Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote:
Â
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 the floor plan, the outward 
appearance of the building, overhead photos, 
local zoning regulations, and much else that 
there cannot possibly be industrial equipment 
next door using this much heat. You would just 
ignore all that and write a check?


Even if you want to stick to flow rates and 
temperatures, you would be risking your life to 
believe Rossi. He has demonstrated on many 
occasions that he is incapable of measuring flow 
rates and temperatures correctly. He almost 
killed the people from NASA doing that wrong. I 
would not go into the room where he is 
conducting an experiment if all I had was his 
measurements of flow and temperature.


- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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. This is evidence to be presented
in court and does not require hearsay statements to indicate validity.

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 not the basis -- or not the only basis -- because Rossi has
> made huge mistakes again and again in his calorimetry. His measurements of
> these things is not to be trusted. He nearly killed Jim Dunn and the others
> with his mistakes.
>
> Even if you were inclined to believe Rossi, you would still need to
> confirm the output by examining the customer's equipment. You should also
> use some common sense. It is not possible to use up this much process heat
> in 6,500 sq. ft. You need to find out what is actually happening.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 photos were taken. See:

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8157611,-80.3250736,204m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

You would have to make a chimney straight through the roof of the building
to the outside. You could not exhaust the heat into the crawl space as is
sometimes done.


Let me say only that other people have examined the building recently and
confirmed there are problems.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Robert Dorr



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 or the factory building?


On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote:
Â
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 the floor plan, the outward 
appearance of the building, overhead photos, 
local zoning regulations, and much else that 
there cannot possibly be industrial equipment 
next door using this much heat. You would just 
ignore all that and write a check?


Even if you want to stick to flow rates and 
temperatures, you would be risking your life to 
believe Rossi. He has demonstrated on many 
occasions that he is incapable of measuring flow 
rates and temperatures correctly. He almost 
killed the people from NASA doing that wrong. I 
would not go into the room where he is 
conducting an experiment if all I had was his 
measurements of flow and temperature.


- Jed



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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 not the basis -- or not the only basis -- because Rossi has
made huge mistakes again and again in his calorimetry. His measurements of
these things is not to be trusted. He nearly killed Jim Dunn and the others
with his mistakes.

Even if you were inclined to believe Rossi, you would still need to confirm
the output by examining the customer's equipment. You should also use some
common sense. It is not possible to use up this much process heat in 6,500
sq. ft. You need to find out what is actually happening.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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 the floor plan, the outward appearance of the building,
> overhead photos, local zoning regulations, and much else that there cannot
> possibly be industrial equipment next door using this much heat. You would
> just ignore all that and write a check?
>
> Even if you want to stick to flow rates and temperatures, you would be
> risking your life to believe Rossi. He has demonstrated on many occasions
> that he is incapable of measuring flow rates and temperatures correctly. He
> almost killed the people from NASA doing that wrong. I would not go into
> the room where he is conducting an experiment if all I had was his
> measurements of flow and temperature.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 the floor plan, the outward appearance of the building,
overhead photos, local zoning regulations, and much else that there cannot
possibly be industrial equipment next door using this much heat. You would
just ignore all that and write a check?

Even if you want to stick to flow rates and temperatures, you would be
risking your life to believe Rossi. He has demonstrated on many occasions
that he is incapable of measuring flow rates and temperatures correctly. He
almost killed the people from NASA doing that wrong. I would not go into
the room where he is conducting an experiment if all I had was his
measurements of flow and temperature.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Mark Jurich
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 for and what may be suspect in the test.

- Mark Jurich 


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 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.
>>
>
> In real life, at a real factory, they turn off the boiler when production
> is shut down. What you are saying is that for some strange reason they
> decided to leave the boiler running. In that case there must be ventilation
> equipment running when they do not need the heat.
>
> Any person evaluating this claim would have to examine both the production
> equipment and the ventilation equipment. You would not rely on calorimetry
> alone; you would use every method available to confirm the claim. No one
> would pay $89 million without doing this. Rossi and Penon stated this is
> not necessary. You saw that in the Lewan interview.  such ludicrous
> assertions are why I think those two must be very stupid, or they are
> frauds.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 manufacturing process.
>

In real life, at a real factory, they turn off the boiler when production
is shut down. What you are saying is that for some strange reason they
decided to leave the boiler running. In that case there must be ventilation
equipment running when they do not need the heat.

Any person evaluating this claim would have to examine both the production
equipment and the ventilation equipment. You would not rely on calorimetry
alone; you would use every method available to confirm the claim. No one
would pay $89 million without doing this. Rossi and Penon stated this is
not necessary. You saw that in the Lewan interview.  such ludicrous
assertions are why I think those two must be very stupid, or they are
frauds.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Robert Dorr


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 (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 next room, you still need proof of that. You 
need to see the ventilation equipment. Anyone making a serious 
evaluation of this claim cannot simply take it for granted that some 
mysterious entity in the next room is getting and using an 
extraordinary amount of process heat -- enough to run a factory. 
That claim by itself is preposterous. It is, as I said, prima facie 
evidence of fraud.


In 6,500 sq. ft?!? Have you seen industrial equipment that uses this 
much process heat?


Do you really think anyone would pay $89 million without confirming 
every aspect of this claim, by every possible means? What kind of 
insane person would accept this claim without seeing the equipment 
next door; without talking with the dozens of people operating that 
equipment day and night; and without examining whatever industrial 
product they are producing by the ton? You need to confirm that X 
tons of Widgets per week really does call for a steady stream of 1 
MW of process heat.


This is an elementary step in the verification of the claim, at the 
most basic level.


- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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  wrote:

> 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 next room, you still need proof of that. You need to see
> the ventilation equipment. Anyone making a serious evaluation of this claim
> cannot simply take it for granted that some mysterious entity in the next
> room is getting and using an extraordinary amount of process heat -- enough
> to run a factory. That claim by itself is preposterous. It is, as I said,
> prima facie evidence of fraud.
>
> In 6,500 sq. ft?!? Have you seen industrial equipment that uses this much
> process heat?
>
> Do you really think anyone would pay $89 million without confirming every
> aspect of this claim, by every possible means? What kind of insane person
> would accept this claim without seeing the equipment next door; without
> talking with the dozens of people operating that equipment day and night;
> and without examining whatever industrial product they are producing by the
> ton? You need to confirm that X tons of Widgets per week really does call
> for a steady stream of 1 MW of process heat.
>
> This is an elementary step in the verification of the claim, at the most
> basic level.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>
> 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 the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement,
>> but IH didn’t accept.
>>
>>
>>
> As I stated previously, I have no knowledge of the business arrangements,
> contracts and so on between I.H. and Rossi. I would never ask about these
> matters because they are none of my business. Even if I did know about
> them, I would never discuss them here, or anywhere else.
>
> The only thing I know about is the calorimetry. That is, the equipment and
> methods used in this test. I have some knowledge of that, although I would
> like to know more. I know enough to evaluate the claims. Based on my
> evaluation, I agree with I.H. that there is no excess heat.
>
> If you are trying to evaluate calorimetry based on your speculation about
> business arrangements -- arrangements about which you know nothing -- you
> are making a huge mistake.
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 next room, you still need proof of that. You need to see
the ventilation equipment. Anyone making a serious evaluation of this claim
cannot simply take it for granted that some mysterious entity in the next
room is getting and using an extraordinary amount of process heat -- enough
to run a factory. That claim by itself is preposterous. It is, as I said,
prima facie evidence of fraud.

In 6,500 sq. ft?!? Have you seen industrial equipment that uses this much
process heat?

Do you really think anyone would pay $89 million without confirming every
aspect of this claim, by every possible means? What kind of insane person
would accept this claim without seeing the equipment next door; without
talking with the dozens of people operating that equipment day and night;
and without examining whatever industrial product they are producing by the
ton? You need to confirm that X tons of Widgets per week really does call
for a steady stream of 1 MW of process heat.

This is an elementary step in the verification of the claim, at the most
basic level.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement,
> but IH didn’t accept.
>
>
>
As I stated previously, I have no knowledge of the business arrangements,
contracts and so on between I.H. and Rossi. I would never ask about these
matters because they are none of my business. Even if I did know about
them, I would never discuss them here, or anywhere else.

The only thing I know about is the calorimetry. That is, the equipment and
methods used in this test. I have some knowledge of that, although I would
like to know more. I know enough to evaluate the claims. Based on my
evaluation, I agree with I.H. that there is no excess heat.

If you are trying to evaluate calorimetry based on your speculation about
business arrangements -- arrangements about which you know nothing -- you
are making a huge mistake.

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Robert Dorr



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.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR




At 12:17 PM 5/16/2016, you wrote:

Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote:
Â
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 are joking. That has to be joke. No? You mean it??

It matters because seeing the equipment would 
prove there really is 1 MW of process heat being 
used. You could look at the nameplate of the 
equipment and see the capacity. You could watch 
the process. You could see that dozens of people 
are using the equipment night and day, 7 days a 
week. Because if they are not using all the 
heat, all the time, the heat returns to reactor, 
and the calorimetry is invalid. Or the reactor explodes.


It matters because it is quite impossible to fit 
industrial equipment using this much process 
heat into a 6,500 sq. ft. facility, and the 
claim itself is prima facie proof of fraud. It is preposterous.


If by some miracle you find this equipment 
there, in use, and running at a production level 
that consumes 1 MW, you would also observe 
ventilation equipment and other proof of this heat release.


Okay?

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Axil Axil
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.



If the Rossi reactor was non functional, why did IH pass up the Rossi buy
out offer?

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 are joking. That has to be joke. No? You mean it??
>
> It matters because seeing the equipment would prove there really is 1 MW
> of process heat being used. You could look at the nameplate of the
> equipment and see the capacity. You could watch the process. You could see
> that dozens of people are using the equipment night and day, 7 days a week.
> Because if they are not using all the heat, all the time, the heat returns
> to reactor, and the calorimetry is invalid. Or the reactor explodes.
>
> It matters because it is quite impossible to fit industrial equipment
> using this much process heat into a 6,500 sq. ft. facility, and the claim
> itself is prima facie proof of fraud. It is preposterous.
>
> If by some miracle you find this equipment there, in use, and running at a
> production level that consumes 1 MW, you would also observe ventilation
> equipment and other proof of this heat release.
>
> Okay?
>
> - Jed
>
>


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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 are joking. That has to be joke. No? You mean it??

It matters because seeing the equipment would prove there really is 1 MW of
process heat being used. You could look at the nameplate of the equipment
and see the capacity. You could watch the process. You could see that
dozens of people are using the equipment night and day, 7 days a week.
Because if they are not using all the heat, all the time, the heat returns
to reactor, and the calorimetry is invalid. Or the reactor explodes.

It matters because it is quite impossible to fit industrial equipment using
this much process heat into a 6,500 sq. ft. facility, and the claim itself
is prima facie proof of fraud. It is preposterous.

If by some miracle you find this equipment there, in use, and running at a
production level that consumes 1 MW, you would also observe ventilation
equipment and other proof of this heat release.

Okay?

- Jed


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

2016-05-16 Thread Jed Rothwell
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.
facility. Imagine cramming the equivalent of 100 dry cleaning machines in
there! That alone is a remarkable accomplishment.

A dry cleaning machine would use up the steam, so this must be something
different. What do you suppose a chemical distributor needs with 1 MW of
steam, generated day and night, 24/7??

Golly gee gosh, it sounds strange to me!

- Jed


  1   2   >