Jack,
It could be more problematic than that. If the customer was using electricity for heating, that means that natural gas is unavailable. This is true in Miami and much of south Florida – little access to natural gas. Thus “the customer” could be already paying three times more for heat then a competitor with access to natural gas. Even today, AR is still hedging: “if the plant is successful”… LOL … after 9 months of claimed operation, he should have more confidence than this – unless for instance, there are long periods where there is little or no thermal gain from the reactors. In that event, someone must pay for electrical power to supply the required heat (at a net loss). My expectation is that the report on the megawatt box, if it actually is a complete study which can be independently verified - will severely disappoint most of Rossi’s fan base. More likely it will be severely edited, data-free, unverified and almost meaningless. From: Jack Cole Recently, I was thinking about how Rossi's industrial test could turn out to be problematic in the end. Consider the following scenario: the plant of the customer used conventional heating elements to heat their water before, but their pipes in their boiler system were not as well insulated as in Rossi's container. So, if at the end, the customer saves 50% on electricity bills, do we know Rossi's reactor works? Of course there comes a point where the above scenario could not explain the results (e.g., the customer's bills are cut by 90%). The savings data will have to be backed up by data on the energy balance of the system (energy output/input). Jack
