I don't get it. Dump the 1 MW of heat energy into an Olympic sized swimming pool and in a few days it would be uncomfortably hot.. in 9 days the whole pool would be boiling. If he used diesel for the input energy, the test would be conclusive in days. What are they doing for the other 11 months?
That said, anyone know where the test was run? Where the heat energy was supposed to go? The input (natural gas or electricity?) Does Rossi have other units running, and if so, where? I'm heading to FL and happy to knock on a few doors or look for massive quantities of steam. The only thing I can think of is that results look convincing with thermocouples and IR cameras, but for some reason,extracting the energy is proving impossible... which would explain positive "reports" and zero proof. - Brad On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Teslaalset <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Rossi does not have any obligations to anyone except probably Darden >> because he invested in his technology development. He is an entrepreneur and >> not somebody who is payed by society. What he tells us and what he doesn’t >> tell us is up to him. > > > I agree. That is what I said. However, I think he makes a big mistake when > he does half-assed public tests and then publishes incomplete, > poorly-written descriptions of them. Of course he has a right to do this. Of > course it is up to him. But it is still a stupid thing to do. It hurts his > credibility and it makes the whole field look bad to some extent, so I wish > he would cut it out. > > It is ironic, but in some ways his tests have been better than the published > descriptions of them indicate. He could have made a more convincing case for > himself just by publishing more details. For example, in one test, he used > flow calorimetry. He listed the approximate flow rate in the report, with no > indication of how it was measured. I asked him how he measured the flow > rate. He did not respond so I asked other people who were involved. No one > responded. Other people asked -- still no response. This made the entire > test questionable. A flow rate might vary without your noticing it. In the > past, he said he measured the flow rate with a bucket and a stopwatch > periodically. This is a good idea but it is not adequate for a multi-hour or > multi-day test. Plus you have to say how periodically, how many times, and > what the results were. > > Several months after this, someone pointed out to me that a photograph > showed a flowmeter attached to the equipment. I zoomed in, read the make and > model, and looked up the specifications. It was a conventional residential > digital water meter; a low-flow model often used in apartment complexes. > These meters are very reliable. This model is precise enough to give a good > answer in the range of claimed heat. Like all water meters it records both > flow and volume. In short, it was an excellent choice for this test. So, WHY > DIDN'T THEY LIST IT IN THE REPORT?!? For crying out loud! > > Really, what is with that??? Were they trying to make themselves look bad? > Is McKubre right, and is Rossi deliberately trying to make his own results > look doubtful? Jim Patterson used to do that; it is not out of the question. > I don't know. I cannot read Rossi's mind. I can only say that in my opinion > and in the opinions of most people I know in business, this is a stupid, > counterproductive, self-destructive thing to do. > > - Jed >
