"There were not "52 boxes" there were just four units working."
Rossi had two reactors in the test, a tiger that used 4 250 KW units, and a older design that served as backup that uses 48 smaller units. The backup was never used. On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >> There were not "52 boxes" there were just four units working. > > > Look at the drawing and you will see that they are made up of multiple > boxes, as described in the lawsuit. As I said, that means there are a lot > of metal walls in close contact with the nickel and the heaters. > > > >> No one outside of Rossi's camp can have "brushed up against them" > > > Yes, a woman did, during a public demonstration when one of the boxes was > sitting on a table. I have a video of it somewhere. This was an older > generation box but similar according to Rossi. > > Mats Lewan provided the video, as I recall. He was there. > > That box was also under insulation but it was pretty hot. Mats measured > the surface temperature. I do not recall what it was, but it was hot. > > > Rossi spent much of his time in the computer container that had a 3KW air >> conditioner. Where did you get the idea Rossi never used a computer? >> > > Actually he told me that. Several people who have visited him confirmed it. > > > >> I agree with Robert Door that it should be possible to measure the >> performance of the plant by measuring the flow rate of the water and >> depending on the temperature of the output, if appreciably above 100C as >> steam . . . > > > Sure it would be possible. No one disputes that. However, to believe > Rossi's instruments and flow rate without verification would be insane, > given his track record for doing such measurements wrong. More to the > point, not doing a reality check check by going next door and looking at > the industrial equipment would be the very height of insanity and > irresponsibility under these circumstances. Would you really pay $89 > million without doing that? > > > >> No one knows the JM Products process that could well have been >> proprietary. > > > Whatever process it may be, since it consumes 1 MW of process heat, I am > quite sure you cannot fit it into 6,500 sq. ft. > > > >> A specially made piece of equipment would be unlikely to have a name >> plate giving the specifications. > > > All factory equipment of this nature must list such specifications by law. > You have to show electric power consumption, steam or process heat > consumption both minimum and maximum, pressure ranges, etc. Look at the > on-line specifications for dry cleaning steam equipment, kilns, building > heaters, food processing equipment, etc. > > - Jed > >
