On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Peter Heckert <peter.heck...@arcor.de> wrote:
> The question is, how did they measure the energy input?
> This is not documented.
Were you being sarcastic? I'll assume you weren't.
To answer your first question, it is not documented but it seems quite
obvious.
The power was entirely supplied by a diesel generator. The diesel
generator had a fuel level meter or an electricity meter built-in, or
maybe they connected an electricity meter between the diesel generator
and the equipment.
They obviously took readings before and after and wrote down the
difference. What else? Do you imagine that Fioravanti took a hard
look at the genset, then said, "Well I guess that's about 66 kWh" and
wrote that down?
> This colonel engineer confuses kg and g.
False. The correct sentence would be :
> This coloned engineer CONFUSED kg and g.
That is, he made a mistake in the report. You can't claim with
a straight face that he doesn't know a gram from a kilogram.
> He measures a hydrogen consumtion of 1.7000 kg and dont write down all
> significant digits.
That's part of the same fuck-up.
> Then he subtracts this from a value that means gramm. but is mistakenly
> labeled as "kg".
That's part of the same fuck-up.
> How can we win a war where precise decisions must be made in seconds? ;-)
What?
> He makes many handwritten corrections and erasures to ensure he can
> read his own writing.
Is this sarcasm?
> He has two different ways to write a one: "1" and "|" in one and the
> same document.
That remark is completely silly. Or are you one of these people who
believe in "graphology"?
> He uses decimal point and decimal "," alternating in one and the same
> document.
That would tend to indicate that we was often reading or writing
technical documents in different languages with different conventions.
> How can we believe he measured or calculated the electrical energy or the
> diesel consumption correctly?
How can we take what you say seriously when you come up with arguments
like this instead of discussing the core issue?
> Possibly he has confused more than that?
Yeah, maybe he was just some random drunken hobo off the streets of
Bologna calling himself "colonel".
> This is not a Nato colonel engineer with 30 year of experience in a
> multi-language military organisation.
You must be joking.
Maybe Fioravanti is one of these rare engineers who is not an
obsessive-compulsive robot with Asperger syndrome?
Anyway, let me resume the content of this topic.
(a) MY gratuitously asserts that the reason for the "guaranteed COP of
7" statement is that Rossi, in her belief, thinks that he can get away
claiming that he sells million-dollar devices that vaporize water
completely where, in fact, they barely vaporize it.
(b) I reply by showing that, even if Rossi's device didn't vaporize a
gram of water during the 1 MW demo, it would still have a COP of 40
because it takes more than a fucking gigajoule to heat 4 tons of water
by 90 degrees, and the energy input was less than 250 MJ.
(c) PH finds it appropriate to cast a baseless doubt on the measurement of the
input energy and then goes on a completely wild tangent by nit picking on
Fioravanti's handwriting. But it's so comical ("NATO colonels don't make
mistakes") that I have probablly missed some sarcasm.
I'd be happier when you guys come up with real arguments and not silly "I don't
like his handwriting!" arguments.
--
Berke Durak
