There is another measure of performance that could be used to replace the ERV. The customer's electric meter shows how much electric power fed unto the E-Cat and the customer paid for the steam that the E-Cat produced. If the COP of the E-Cat is high enough, these gross input and output power levels will show a COP over 6,
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > > >> Jed. "I hereby certify that this reactor produces anomalous heat with a >> COP exceeding 6. Please remit $89 million." >> >> That is a gross over simplification. > > > Yes, that is what I said. It is meant to be. This is an extreme example of > a report that no judge would uphold. The point is, whatever the contract > says, if it comes to trial, expert witnesses will have to render an opinion > on the report and the equipment. The judge is not going to rule in favor of > Rossi just because the contract says the Penon report will decide the issue. > > > >> The contract states that the ERV must be acceptable to both parties and >> that the outcome would indeed depend on his report. > > > But not if the report is bad enough. If the report claims output is is 80 > times input, and a series of expert witnesses say it was 1 times input, no > judge or jury will rule in favor of Rossi, no matter what the contract > says. Judges apply common sense to contract disputes. You do not get $89 > million when all the experts agree you made a drastic error in calorimetry. > > > >> He had his own instruments and it should not be hard to measure the >> performance with reasonable accuracy. I know I could have done so. >> > > He, who? Penon? You or I could have done it with reasonable accuracy but > as you saw in 2012 he was even worse then Levi et al. The I.H. people did > measure it with reasonable accuracy, they say. They they got a different > answer. You will have to read the two reports (or at least the Penon > report) before you can judge. Or, you can trust my judgement of the > abilities of the two parties. That is not as good a metric as reading the > reports, but it is better than nothing. > > They both claim they measured with reasonable accuracy. One of them has to > be drastically wrong. Do you have any reason to assume I.H. is making the > mistake, rather than Rossi? Why are you on Rossi's side? > > You can easily discover that Penon and Rossi have a history of making > extraordinarily stupid mistakes in calorimetry. > > > >> What is fishy is that IH apparently made no effort to allow the trial to >> start (delaying it for almost a year?). >> > > I don't see what is fishy about that, and I do not recall it was delayed > that long. That is discussed in the lawsuit documents. > > > >> As I think you wrote $89 million is peanuts if the plant works as well as >> has been reported >> > > Which is another reason to think it does not work. Because even if it > produced only 30% excess instead of 80 times input, I expect I.H. would > continue the research. They would not declare it did not work, and abandon > it. > > - Jed > >
