Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> This leads us back to the Lawsuit. It is incomprehensible that Rossi does > not also have some gain – in the range of COP~1.2-1.5. > Why do you say that? Do you have some inside information? Based on what I have seen, it is quite comprehensible there is no gain. It looks to me like a COP in the cooling loop is below 1, because of waste heat losses from the reactor, which is a poorly designed electric heater. There is no indication of excess heat. Let’s make it clear that IH is partly to blame. > Why?? They did all they could to persuade Rossi to do a proper test. He refused. They demanded he show them the customer equipment. He refused. He blocked them at every stage. > If Rossi has any gain at all and demonstrated it, IH is then at fault for > not admitting that there is some gain . . . > If he has any gain at all he should have installed proper instruments and he should have done a test that demonstrates this heat. Even with his present ridiculous configuration it is clear from his data there is no excess heat. > IH could hire competent engineers to reproduce slight gain- except this > step would be seen as a partial admission that Rossi has something of value. > I.H. has superb engineers. They have confirmed there is no heat. They have better, more complete information than I do, so they can be more certain of this than I am. The crux of the situation is that a low level of gain, whatever it is – is > scientifically important in the big picture . . . > It would be important if it existed, but it doesn't, so it isn't. - Jed
