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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> 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 > >
