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

quot;vortex-l" <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 4:53:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Patrick Ellul < ellulpatr...@gmail.com > wrote: > The temperature was just over 100 deg C according to Rossi. Where did you get this quote from Ross

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

Patrick Ellul wrote: > > The temperature was just over 100 deg C according to Rossi. > > Where did you get this quote from Rossi? > You can compute that from what he told Lewan. See: [Vo]:Re: CMNS: CONTRIBUTION FROM V. VYSOTSKII, NEW DISPUTE GENERATOR LAUNCHED It is

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

On 22 May 2016 1:04 AM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: > The temperature was just over 100 deg C according to Rossi. Where did you get this quote from Rossi?

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

a.ashfield wrote: > Whether the output is dry steam depends largely on the temperature, which > is also easy to measure. So if the temperature was say 120C, it would be > dry. The temperature was just over 100 deg C according to Rossi. Do the number from the interview

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

Daniel. "The link is not working!" Try this http://supaflex-agencies.com/solutions/case-study-8--clyde-boilers-7-mws-at-london-bridge-city.html

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

The link is not working! 2016-05-18 20:09 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield : > EDIT: The fourth picture down this page shows 4.4MW's of boiler stuck in a > basement, with a HVAC system smaller than found in a small (500 person) > nightclub. Funny that. > >

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

Jones Beene wrote: > JR: Why do you say that? > > It’s pretty obvious. Going back twenty years, Thermacore – a world class > company in thermodynamics, saw 280 days of gain at COP of ~1.5 using nickel > . . . > Nickel does not always work. Many people have tried it and got

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

The heat output from the Rssi reactor was transferred through the use of a heat exchange with the excess not used by the customer being vented to the outside of the building. The temperature of the return water may be estimated through the projection of the efficiency of the heat exchanger with a

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

Slad gave figures for the pipe sizes for the input of water and the exit of steam for the 1 MW plant. It occurred to me that the pipe size is not critical if the system is really a closed loop. The flow rate of water is easy to measure. Whether the output is dry steam depends largely on the

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

From: Jed Rothwell This leads us back to the Lawsuit. It is incomprehensible that Rossi does not also have some gain – in the range of COP~1.2-1.5. JR: Why do you say that? It’s pretty obvious. Going back twenty years, Thermacore – a world class company in thermodynamics, saw 280 days of gain

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

Jones Beene wrote: > This leads us back to the Lawsuit. It is incomprehensible that Rossi does > not also have some gain – in the range of COP~1.2-1.5. > Why do you say that? Do you have some inside information? Based on what I have seen, it is quite comprehensible there

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

a.ashfield wrote: Jed. I did not say it is impossible. Please do not put words in my mouth. > > AA. You said it was not possible to know if the 1 MW plant produced 1 MW > without knowing where the output went > This is just a variant of what I quoted you as saying. >

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

Jed says he thinks it it impossible to measure the performance of a black box by measuring the input and output, without knowing how the heat is dissipated from the output. That is clearly not true. Jed. I did not say it is impossible. Please do not put words in my mouth. AA. You said it

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

*try to reproduce 2016-05-18 12:39 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha : > MFMP, Parkhomov, and the hundreds of tests reproduces > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com

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

I think Rossi is the best thing that happened to Cold Fusion since the detection of He4, independently of him being right or not. Many people became curious with it. Perhaps MFMP would not exist without him. I think it will end well, as long as this soap opera with Rossi continues. In any case, I

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

From: Daniel Rocha … some of them [MFMP] did yield COP>1, at least that's what I understand from Bob Higgins. And these are not perfect replications. Last Sunday there was a Bay Area Meetup group. Alan Goldwater presented his latest MFMP results. He is doing top quality work

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: There is something to steal. You insisted that the test by the colonel > yielded extra heat. > No, I said there was no proof and I have no idea what the colonel saw or did. > There were other occasions tooSo, there is something there. > There may

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

There is something to steal. You insisted that the test by the colonel yielded extra heat. There were other occasions tooSo, there is something there. And we don't know what he breached several times and why didn't they just cancel the whole thing only in the end. IH is not composed by stupid

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: At the end of the test? That's cheating from IH. They should had required > that before the test. > They required it at the beginning, the middle and the end, several times. They made several other requirements clear. He did not fulfill a single one of

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: So, you have seen a *sample*. Mats has data and he sees excess heat. > My guess is that he has the same sample I have. Rossi says it shows excess heat, but I disagree. The people at I.H. also disagree with him. Anyone experienced making these

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

At the end of the test? That's cheating from IH. They should had required that before the test. This kind of requirement goes to an endless loop of questions which ends in IH claiming something impossible to do. It's easier to suppose IH did steal tech from Rossi. 2016-05-18 10:58 GMT-03:00 Jed

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: And that was agreed by IH. > No, I.H. emphatically did not agree! As stated by Rossi himself, "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." I.H. insisted. Rossi

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

a.ashfield wrote: > Jed says he thinks it it impossible to measure the performance of a black > box by measuring the input and output, without knowing how the heat is > dissipated from the output. That is clearly not true. > I did not say it is impossible. Please do

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

Craig Haynie wrote: > However, if Rossi believed he had something real, then there were valid > reasons not to allow IH to analyze their own data, or get too involved with > the validation of the device, at the stage which occurred last year in the > process, when the

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

And that was agreed by IH. 2016-05-18 10:44 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > so I am sure he had all the access he wanted. > >

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

Eric Walker wrote: > Is the suggestion that Penon was in control and that he did not allow > Leonardo access to the customer installation either? > Rossi had the keys and he was often seen going into the secret facility. His lawyer set up the company, so I am sure he had

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

So, you have seen a *sample*. Mats has data and he sees excess heat. 2016-05-18 10:41 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > I have seen a sample of the data and I agree there is no excess heat. > > >

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

Jack Cole wrote: > IH was supposedly given everything they needed to replicate, and they > were unable to. > I do not know whether they attempted to replicate. I have not heard about this. The present dispute is not about a replication. It is about Rossi's own tests, and

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

Mats has data on his hand and says COP>1. And I haven't seen any test that included electric discharge,

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

Daniel, Of the ones I mentioned, none exhibited COP > 1. I will let MFMP speak to whether they think they might have gotten COP>1, but I would say that they have not convincingly. Some of my early experiments looked promising, but I must conclude them in error since I saw nothing when I

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

As I have said before, the facts are not known with certainty and we need to wait for more data before reaching a conclusion. Jed says he thinks it it impossible to measure the performance of a black box by measuring the input and output, without knowing how the heat is dissipated from the

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

That is not the same as testing Rossi's devices. But some of them did yield COP>1, at least that's what I understand from Bob Higgins. And these are not perfect replications. Check his new patent out to know what you missed. 2016-05-18 10:02 GMT-03:00 Jack Cole : > Yes, of

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

Yes, of course. I should have probably said at least a 100 instead of 100s, although 100s would probably be valid as people often don't publish negative results. On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:58 AM Daniel Rocha wrote: > Are referring to replications? > > >

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

Are referring to replications?

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

Personally, I have conducted ~30. Ed Storms has conducted "dozens." Budko & Korshunov conducted 17. Jeff Morris has conducted at least 3 in a calorimeter. JPB has conducted 20+. How many has Brian Albiston conducted now (20-40)? Oh yes, almost forgot Brian Ahern, Mizzou, Lugano, MFMP. On

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

How do you know that? 2016-05-18 9:30 GMT-03:00 Jack Cole : > On the contrary, hundreds of experiments say it doesn't work at all. > >

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: "My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. " There is no new pattern, but the previous patterns have been elucidated. One too many cards were added to the house of cards, and now it is

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

On 05/17/2016 10:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Now that you know Rossi explicitly refused to allow an inspection of the customer's equipment, you should realize he has zero credibility, and you should not believe a word he says. I've got to object to this statement; not that I believe, or

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

If both parties are playing correctly, yes, that's what I mean. LHC has 2 independent detectors, ATLAS and CMS, with different methods for detection and several different teams to treat the data. That's a way of reproducing an experiment, without having to build new colliders. As for the money,

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still > waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. There's nothing > that Rossi did in this test that he had not done before. > So, you have no problem with hiding the

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

*as anything other than getting thints straight 2016-05-18 0:23 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha : > That the company was a shell was known to both parties. So, I cannot see > this as anything as IH and Rossi trying to get things straight. The only > way I see sense out of this it

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

That the company was a shell was known to both parties. So, I cannot see this as anything as IH and Rossi trying to get things straight. The only way I see sense out of this it is that the shell company hired people in an attempt of doing a double party test. The hired people would not know that

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: That's your guess. > No, it is not my guess at all. You can ask Rossi. He will probably confirm that he agrees with his puppet, and there is no need for anyone to see the customer's machinery. Heck, people right here agree with that! Robert Dorr, Axil

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

I wrote: Yes, regrettably that is the case. As I said before, I heard they had > disagreements, but I sincerely hoped they would iron out the problems and > agree on the test results. But it is not possible to iron out this problem! > If you are not allowed to do a thorough analysis of the

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

That's your guess. IH agreed with the choice of Penon. That could well be IH avoiding Rossi to cheat. 2016-05-17 23:32 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > Penon is Rossi's puppet. It was Rossi's policy not to allow anyone into > the customer site. > > >

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: > I thought it was Penon who said there was no need for that. > Penon is Rossi's puppet. It was Rossi's policy not to allow anyone into the customer site. - Jed

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

David Roberson wrote: Jed, > > Do I understand that you have seen the actual test data and have > determined that zero power in excess of the input is achieved? Yes, as I have said several times, I have seen some data. Rossi's methods are so bad, the data is a godawful

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

I thought it was Penon who said there was no need for that. 2016-05-17 23:03 GMT-03:00 David Roberson : > Why should Rossi not allow the other parties to see how the heated water > is used?

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

That's what "Jed says". 2016-05-17 22:32 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > You know that I have seen the data, >

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

com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, May 17, 2016 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: It is a measure of Rossi's reality distortion field that people here are ok with Leonardo's and the ERV's having prev

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

ect: Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: I think it is pretty much obvious that I don't believe you. Or any of the other people here. You have no reason to doubt me. You know that I have seen the data, and that I am capable of doing or

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

Eric Walker wrote: 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

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: I think it is pretty much obvious that I don't believe you. Or any of the > other people here. > You have no reason to doubt me. You know that I have seen the data, and that I am capable of doing ordinary, elementary calorimetry. You know that Rossi

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: Well, CF is a nuclear reaction. The density, even in Pd/D is similar to > that of a nuclear peable. It's just that it is tiny. > Yes, but this is not a cold fusion device. It is inert. No reaction is occurring. As I said, if you put in sand instead of

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

I think it is pretty much obvious that I don't believe you. Or any of the other people here. 2016-05-17 22:23 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > It does not produce any excess heat. >

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

Well, CF is a nuclear reaction. The density, even in Pd/D is similar to that of a nuclear peable. It's just that it is tiny.

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: This is a problem. The design of a nuclea reactor is not quite the same as > a boiler . . . > This is not a nuclear reactor. It does not produce any excess heat. The nickel powder does nothing, any more than sand or rock would. The heat balance shows

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: I common HVAC engineer might be able to measure an open circuit, but only a > nuclear one would have an idea of how the internal parts would look like. > There is no need for anyone to know what the internal parts of the Rossi reactor are like. They

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

I common HVAC engineer might be able to measure an open circuit, but only a nuclear one would have an idea of how the internal parts would look like. Or maybe one that deals with cooling of powerful motors.

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

This is a problem. The design of a nuclea reactor is not quite the same as a boiler, you have to pass running water fast and/or use vast volume of water. A boiler has such format to make sure pressure is well distributed, but a nuclear rector needs fast cooling, not necessarily high pressure. This

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

Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: To me the dispute between Rossi and IH is very simple to resolve. If there > is any weaknesses > in the test one need to agree on a fair rerun of the test for a day or > two. There is abolutely no > sane argument for not doing such a test.

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

To me the dispute between Rossi and IH is very simple to resolve. If there is any weaknesses in the test one need to agree on a fair rerun of the test for a day or two. There is abolutely no sane argument for not doing such a test. Rossi has no arguments against doing that. It's peanuts compared

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

Daniel Rocha, The melting temperature of most types of glass is around 550C and the specific heat is 0.7J/gC. The latent heat of glass is 10kJ/mol, and on average, it has 60g/mol, so we have 166J/g. 1.5*10^6g*530*0.7J + 166*1.5*10^6J per day, that around 880MJ/day. If the exposition work

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

a.ashfield wrote: Jed > > "So, I am not speculating. I may be wrong but I am not speculating." > > No comment needed. > A comment is needed. What the hell do you mean? I am clearly not speculating here when I cite what people told me, what the lawsuit said, and what a

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

Jed "So, I am not speculating. I may be wrong but I am not speculating." No comment needed.

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

Daniel Rocha wrote: > And, please, provide the arguments that these HVAC people you talked to. > Otherwise, it's only more hearsay! > As I recall -- A square shape has more surface area than a cylinder. The ideal boiler is a large cylinder. These were small square

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

I wrote: > 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. > Perhaps I should add that observers also told me that fans were often turned off, yet the room was not particularly hot.

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

The melting temperature of most types of glass is around 550C and the specific heat is 0.7J/gC. The latent heat of glass is 10kJ/mol, and on average, it has 60g/mol, so we have 166J/g. 1.5*10^6g*530*0.7J + 166*1.5*10^6J per day, that around 880MJ/day. If the exposition work lasted 8 hours a day,

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

a.ashfield wrote: > > AA. You don’t know that. You are speculating. The drawing is a CAD > speculation by one of Rossi’s licensees and you have no idea what is in it > . . . > 1. I do have some idea of what is in it. 2. The lawsuit says there are 52 units. 3. I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1   2   >