a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: I find it strange that you didn't know there were 2 MW of reactors in the > plant. >
I do not know such details at all. The only thing I know about is the sample data. I immediately saw the problems in that data such as the pressure of 0.0 bar. The data is obviously fake, and physically impossible. The problems I saw were all described in Exhibit 5, along with some other problems I did not know about. So, read that Exhibit, and you will know everything I know. That is my only basis for saying the experiment did not produce heat, and it was fraud. (If you disagree then I think you do not understand machinery.) > I thought that was common knowledge.. The first set of the older design > were what you saw in the photo montage that Rossi provided. (Nothing to do > with Lugano - low temperature units) The second set of four 250 kW units > were right at the end. > None of that matters to me. I am sure the pressure was not 0.0 bar. I am sure that flow meter was the wrong kind. I am sure these problems and the others described in Exhibit 5 preclude any possibility of excess heat and they prove it was fraud. The reactors themselves play no role in this evaluation. > It is pretty weak to say that they all didn't work without any evidence of > that. > The evidence is all in the calorimetry! It makes no difference what reactors were installed. The calorimetry shows they did not work. They can be considered a black box. In fact, they *have to be* considered a black box, or the test method is invalid. > That Rossi didn't attempt to use them is fairly strong evidence he was > satisfied with the four 250 kW units, no matter what you have been told by > IH. > His satisfaction is irrelevant. His data and the photos of his ceiling proves that his claims are fraud. > Do you really think he would build about 80 units for fun and not use > them if needed? > Suppose the 80 units that were not installed actually worked. In that case, if he had installed them, installed proper calorimetric instruments, and showed IH how to make them, IH would have paid him $90 million. There would be no lawsuit. Why would he not do that? Why would he launch an expensive lawsuit if he had working reactors sitting there unused? That makes no sense, and I do not believe it for one second. I am amazed that you believe it. Why would Rossi not install working reactors when he would be paid $90 million to do it?!??? > One of the design of these unused units was what passed the initial test. > None of the used units produced any heat, period. If the unused ones could produce heat, WHY DIDN'T ROSSI INSTALL THEM? You need to answer that question, not me. > IH was bleating about how he used a different design for the test and > tried to make out that disqualified it, if you recall. > Nonsense. The only thing they said, and I said, was the the test failed to show any excess heat, and many of the numbers were obviously fake. They don't care about the design, as long as it works. I have spent a lot of time talking to them about calorimetry. I have not talked at all about their business or the lawsuit, and I did not ask anything about the reactors themselves. As I said, with this calorimetry the reactor as a whole is a single black box. Any design or configuration that produces excess heat can measured the same as any other design. If Rossi had mixed in five different reactor types that all worked, or three that worked and two that did not, I would see no indication of that. Nothing in the calorimetry or the data I saw would show that. Nothing in Exhibit 5 would show it. It would only show X power going in and Y heat coming out of the system as a whole. It is possible to set up calorimetry separately for each reactor, but I did not see any data from that kind of configuration. - Jed
