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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> 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 > >
