Perhaps the output was actively cooled on the "production side". Harry
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Jed, > > All I was saying was that you don't need anything being produced to confirm > that the proper amount of heat was being produced. Obviously it made I.H. > feel better that something was being made with the heat. Why they didn't > enter the production side I don't know. I would be surprised if they were > actually prevented from entering the premises, but maybe they were. They > approved the manufacturer according to the contract so they knew what was > being produced. I'm sure we will find out when it gets to court. > > Robert Dorr > WA7ZQR > > At 01:06 PM 5/16/2016, you wrote: > > Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote: > Â > Get real, the proof is in the flow rates and the temperature delta. That is > all that is required. > > > So you would pay $89 million without doing the most obvious test imaginable? > Without the most elementary reality check? Even though it is obvious from > the floor plan, the outward appearance of the building, overhead photos, > local zoning regulations, and much else that there cannot possibly be > industrial equipment next door using this much heat. You would just ignore > all that and write a check? > > Even if you want to stick to flow rates and temperatures, you would be > risking your life to believe Rossi. He has demonstrated on many occasions > that he is incapable of measuring flow rates and temperatures correctly. He > almost killed the people from NASA doing that wrong. I would not go into the > room where he is conducting an experiment if all I had was his measurements > of flow and temperature. > > - Jed
