I agree with you that a 450kW truck engine would produce about 1MW of waste heat, but don't overlook the fact that the radiator only handles a modest part of that. The biggest heat loss is probably via the Exhaust gases
Ah, yes. Of course. My mistake. I do not know what fraction is removed by the radiator. I saw a paper on that some time ago . . .
This source says a car produces 42 BTU per horsepower, which isn't much:
QuoteI don't know if there was an agreement for the GPT beyond what was mentioned in the License Agreement and the Second Amendment.
I'd doubt it, it would have been mentioned.
However there was (IH quote this in their answer) a "Term sheet" for the non-GPT "customer" Rossi test. I think it is one of the attachments.
IH Fanboy wrote:
I've mentioned many times the value of seeing that agreement. IH has not disclosed it, nor has Rossi, Rossi has merely mentioned it.
QuoteI don't know if there was an agreement for the GPT beyond what was mentioned in the License Agreement and the Second Amendment. Section 5 in the License Agreement was of course void, because the test would not have ended in time to meet the 400 day requirement, so only the Second Amendment, or some other document, or perhaps some common law doctrine like estoppel, could have saved it. IH argue that the Second Amendment wasn't applicable, both because of the missing signatures but also because the Second Amendment discusses the Six Cylinder Unit rather than the 1MW Plant, and the Six Cylinder Unit was left in North Carolina.
Right. They have not yet argued that even if the Second Amendment were valid, that the specific agreement it requires also was missing. Let me look.
I wanted to check to see if certain language was there. " Defendants state that the Proposed Second Amendment speaks for itself." So what they are doing is denying the Second Amendment, denying that the device was the one tested, and then leaving it to Rossi to claim that there was an agreement.
I disagreed with the Judge in the denial of the Motion to Dismiss on the basis of estoppel, because Rossi had not actually alleged estoppel on any of these points. I would have thought that she would have noted the problem and given leave to amend. But she decided to assume estoppel from the great pile of Rossi claims about the Test. On Planet Rossi, they think she dismissed the problem. No. It's still there, and we just might see Summary Judgment before this goes to trial. That depends on what Rossi can come up with.
QuoteIH and Rossi did sign terms for his relocating to Florida, shown in Exhibit 17.
For the relocation of the Plant. I'm not sure that was Rossi moving, he may already have been there.
QuoteThat term sheet discusses the 1 MW plant and the customer (JMC), but no mention is made of the Guaranteed Performance Test.
Right. Exhibit 17 -- and the mail that preceded it, Exhibit 16 -- established the Doral plant as a sale of power as well as a running demonstration that could be show to investors. There is nothing in all that about "Test."
QuoteI suppose it is possible that an additional document will turn up that was the result of a renegotiation between Rossi and IH that mentions Florida, the 1MW unit, Penon as the ERV and so on. Presumably Rossi would have made such a document available in an amendment to the Complaint; if he does not produce such a renegotiation of the terms of the GPT, I'm doubtful that the court will be persuaded that there was a GPT.
Bingo! It is possible and it is quite unlikely, because it would have been incredibly dumb to allow a GPT with Rossi entirely in charge, remote from IH, very different from the original idea, and especially given that they already were coming to a conclusion that the technology was totally punk. But then they could allow the Doral installation; after all, free money, and just maybe Rossi would make the thing work.
But not a GPT. At any time, Rossi and IH could have decided to begin the GPT there. Pretty simple, probably. New ERV and validation process, more sanely designed. But not with that crazy "customer area."
QuoteAn interesting additional detail that I wasn't aware of until a day or two ago: in all of the discussion of the GPT in both the License Agreement and the Second Amendment, no mention is made of there needing to be a customer in order for it to commence.
Right. I've mentioned it many times. But I do write a lot and I don't expect anyone to read it all.
QuoteIn addition, in Exhibit 16, Rossi acknowledges that IH had made space available for the 1 MW Plant in Raleigh, perhaps for the GPT: "Your proposal to put the plant in a factory owned by yourself at least until recently is dramatically less convincing." But in that email, where he was making a case for relocating to Florida, he does not discuss the GPT and only argues that having a real customer buying power from the plant would be of great value.
You noticed. Later, in filing the Complaint he has it that it was IH failure to arrange the test that forced him to do it in Florida.
It's all so obvious, once this material is studied and absorbed. There are fanatics about (on both "sides") and they commonly do not have a grasp of the case, nor of the law, and show that in comments, routinely.
I note for reference that Rossi did not use the term "ERV" on JoNP until Sept 10, 2015.
And then when he did mention it, it was used 5 times in the same post.
Paradigmnoia,
Yes, it was obviously a touchy issue for some time. Maybe even earlier than Sept. Exhibit 5 has this email from Murray to Penon on 16 Feb 2016. Murray had finally, after being blocked access from the site in July 2015, gained access and had some questions of Penon, and highlighted is where he shows a sensitivity towards the topic:
M. Eng. Fabio Penon: I wanted to raise with you, and I was hoping you would address, several issues that surfaced during the time we were in Doral at the location of the 1 MW Plant. This is not an exhaustive list of the issues I identified or that we discussed, but they do represent some of the more glaring concerns that were identified.
* * * * As I noted above, the questions above are not all of the questions I have from my visit to the 1 MW Plant location, but if you can address these, it would be a good start to me better understanding what you were measuring and how you were measuring it in connection with the 1 MW Plant. (Just to be clear, I am not asking you, and I do not plan to ask you, about the license agreement or whether you are an ERV under the agreement. I am trying to focus just on the test and its measurement.)
It should be noted that Rossi ended the test the next day. 17 Feb 2016.
Hopefully that will come out in trial. Was there audio recording in addition to video? That would be helpful to get to the bottom of all of this.
.......
No, we do not need audio. Rossi stated that they were all dancing like ballerinas! So the video only needs to be clear enough to see their faces, their Tu-tus and their little ballerina shoes! He was quite explicit about this! It will be kind of fun to watch these men dancing?! Remember, Rossi stated this, it must be explicitly true!
The difference is that Rossi is clearly being satirical when he states that they danced like ballerinas. Whereas, when Jed makes statements such as "there was no heat," or "there was no chimney," or "there are no unknowns," he actually appears to believe what he says. I don't sense any satire in the least.
The funny thing is, I stared at that "table" for a while, trying to figure out what was on it, and reading box labels
Looks like they eat at "Wendy's" ...a hamburger chain here in the states. 
Exhibit 5 has this email from Murray to Penon on 16 Feb 2016
Just to get the story straight...
92. In February 2016 at an in-person meeting with Penon, Murray identified a number
of flaws in how Penon was conducting his measurements of the Plant. Some of those flaws were
also presented in writing to Penon on March 25, 2016.
This is corroborated by the creation date on the Exhibit 5 document, which is March 24, 2016.
The difference is that Rossi is clearly being satirical when he states that they danced like ballerinas. Whereas, when Jed makes statements such as "there was no heat," or "there was no chimney," or "there are no unknowns," he actually appears to believe what he says. I don't sense any satire in the least.
Yes, my apologies. I occasionally try to inject some humor into the discussion and normally try to notate it as such but did not do so on that post. I should have.
I did not mean to make fun of any other point of view or post, it was just that I always got a big chuckle when I read the "dancing like ballerinas" from Rossi. Your post about the video brought back the visual picture brought on by Rossi's quote and I could not resist.
Again, I was not trying to be cynical on that post or derogatory to others, just some humor. I do fully see how I was not very clear in that intention!
A good thought to keep about this drama...
"“I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to it laughing.”
― Herman Melville, 
Ah, yes. It was Sterling that looked over the wall. (maybe a much different wall today)
Skip to 1:05 to see him peek over. Might be just like looking over the wall in Doral?
I do not know what fraction is removed by the radiator.
This source says one-third goes to the radiator. That sounds too high to me:
http://www.superchevy.com/how-…04-cooling-system-basics/
If that were true, a 600 HP truck which is 25% efficient would send 580 kW to the radiator. I doubt it.
On a 400 HP engine, up to 70 HP can be lost to the drivetrain under full load.
All losses such as in the drivetrain, friction, sound etc. ultimately end up as heat, of course, and are usually not included when specifying the power of an engine. So in the end, one has to see how much chemical energy is contained in the fuel it consumes at full load and subtract the actual work from that. Modern engines are quite efficient in burning fuel so no more than 1-5% get wasted by not being burned in the cylinders but in the exhaust system. Overall, a modern 450 HP Turbo Diesel engine will consume something on the order of 65 ml/s at full load which translates to about 2.2 MJ. Subtract the .33 MJ of power produced and there you have it. 1.9 MJ is waste heat. If we make it a 250 HP engine under full load, we end up with something producing 1 MW of waste heat (unless I made a stupid mistake somewhere, obviously).
.33 MJ of power? You definitely went wrong somewhere. 
A simpler, and less prone to 'stupid mistakes' way to look at it is:
250 BHP = 186 kW mechanical power
Diesel efficiency = 0.45, therefore waste heat lost = 227 kW
Petrol efficiency = 0.30, therefore waste heat lost = 434 kW
Your 450 BHP diesel engine would produce about 0.5 MW waste heat.
A 350 BHP petrol engine going at full pelt has a total mechanical power output/heat loss of about 1 MW.
That's why daft claims like this are obviously ridiculous: More From Rossi on Restricted Access to the Customer’s Plant (link)
If that were true, a 600 HP truck which is 25% efficient would send 580 kW to the radiator. I doubt it.
Jed, 600 BHP @ .25 efficiency = 450 kW mechanical, 1350 kW heat. If one third of the heat is sent to the radiator, that means 445 kW. If the engine is producing 600 BHP, the radiator is being cooled by a >150mph stream of air. What's to doubt?
Yes, alright - "per second". That was my first post here and this forum doesn't seem to support mathml.
"Diesel efficiency = 0.45, therefore waste heat lost = 227 kW"
Maybe for a stationary engine driving a generator or a ship engine - but not in a truck and certainly not at full load. A typical truck engine gets something like .35 at its sweet spot which is typically cruising speed which typically means a lot less than maximum power.
Ecatnews.com didn't support mathml either?
A large Mack Truck produces 605 HP.
Only the very best bi-turbo loaders truck-engines run at the optimal point reach 50% efficiency. In average they run at or below 25%. So we talk of 1-2MW waste heat for one truck.
May be You once try to explain how all these large limousines with 400HP+ get rid of such large amounts (1MW) of heat ...
Wyttenbach, it's obvious that the limo passengers would be boiled alive.
May be You once try to explain how all these large limousines with 400HP+ get rid of such large amounts (1MW) of heat ...
They are not stationary in a warehouse, using their full 400 hp rating.
I, on the other hand, have run a car loaded over 400 hp, stationary, in warehouse shop, on a roller water brake dyno.
In 10 minutes we were sweating through our shirts, with plenty of ventilation to the outside and towards the front of the car.
@Wyttenbach,
Some of that sweat may have been from fear and adrenaline.
The car was starting to try to fishtail in the rollers, with two technicians sitting on the trunk and we never did get it to full throttle.
It was shut down before someone got killed.
