On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:38 PM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote:
Rossi said on his blog all was well with IH in the early days. He surely > would not say that now. > Yes, and Rossi said the following on March 11, only 25 days before he initiated a lawsuit against IH: Thank you for spotting this issue: there is absolutely no divorce between Leonardo Corporation and any of its Licensees, included Industrial Heat. Industrial Heat is the legitimate licensee of Leonardo Corporation for its Territory and I never referred to any possible divorce. I invite anybody to disregard any innuendo, supposition, speculation related to the licenses of Leonardo Corporation unless they are communicated directly from Leonardo Corporation. There is some imbecile that tries to get audience inventing situations that do not exist. [1] On April 7, two days after the suit was filed, Rossi claimed to have 18 volumes of evidence in support of the case [2]. Did everything go terribly wrong between March 11 and April 5, and did Rossi amass those 18 volumes during the intervening time? You will need to decide whether these and other statements are true and benign, or misleading, or false. Rossi says many things. If the output temperature was 116C and the steam superheated, really all > you would need to calculate the thermal output would be a flow meter for > the water going in, a pressure gauge and a thermocouple to measure the > steam temperature. Very basic, easy to do things. That is neglecting the > heat required to heat the water to boiling, as was agreed as a conservative > measure. Jed says he knows what the instrumentation was. Perhaps he will > describe it. > This is not like Rossi's earlier demos where the output was barely above > 100C. > One awaits reliable data upon which to do calculations, which, when obtained, will be interesting to see. But since IH's expert was not allowed access to the customer area, there is no assurance, given what we know, that there was even a closed circuit. Eric [1] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=71#comment-1158228 [2] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=892&cpage=89#comment-1169740
