It worked without even a hiccup when entire banks of reactors were unplugged.
Unplugged, disassembled and in pieces according to some witnesses, and according to Rossi's log. The report shows it continued to produce heat at precisely the same daily rate, even in that condition. That is astounding performance!
Rossi said it worked even then. Penon said so. So Adrian Ashfield believes it worked.
AA: As I said, of course Rossi's claims have to be verified before they can be accepted. But the babblers have zero evidence that they are not true
I don't think Rossi is vindictive but there would be justification for legal proceedings against the owner of this blog for publishing so many libelous comments.
Fair comment, what we are doing here, is not libellous. Where we argue that Rossi's statements are unreliable we give specific reasons why, which any reasonable person would agree.
On the other hand your assuming that Tom Darden's deposition contains direct lies possibly is libellous. You have given no reason to suppose Darden inclined to perjury.
THH
Adrian,
Thanks for keeping track of the different Ecat versions, and what Rossisays comes next. You save me , and others the trouble. I would throw you a like for it, but babble this, babbler that, so I can't.
BTW, twice now you have thrown in the "libelous" word, and twice now I have had to edit it out. Those type legal words come across as threats, and are not good for open discussion.
I notice that moderators try to run a tight ship here with regard to name-calling and other forms of derision. Such enforcement goes out the window when it comes to Adrian. I guess he gets the underdog free pass?
The updated position is that Andrea Rossi says he has:
1. The Qx, now rated at 1 kW, that has been tested for a year and developed
As Shane D. said above, thank you for keeping track of this and summarizing it. So we don't have to. Seriously & sincerely, I appreciate it.
I notice that moderators try to run a tight ship here with regard to name-calling and other forms of derision. Such enforcement goes out the window when it comes to Adrian. I guess he gets the underdog free pass?
Why not? Who cares. Don't be a wuss about it. (Uh oh! Name calling!!)
Not being a wuss. As far as I am concerned, Adrian can spit and scream all he wants. It is part of what makes him special. It is just ironic that the mods post all the time chastising other people for milder versions of the same behavior.
Don't think anyone has commented on this yet:
Hello Mr. Rossi,
some of the posts in the recent days refer to the delivery of heat to a customer, for which he is charged. How is that measured? By some calorimeter ? Or by indirectly measuring temperature and estimating the flow?
You are aware that you’d need a calibrated approved calorimeter-device in most countries?
greetings
DvH
DvH:
It will be a forfait: for example, we are going to supply a system for a total power of 40 MW to a Customer and the Customer will pay 40 MWh/h, even if he will not use in part or in total this amount of energy. Obviously the Client will not pay the amount due for the quantity of energy we will not supply for malfunctions deriving from our responsibility ( errors of us, lack of our maintenance, breakages due to our fault et similia ). Therefore if, for example, we will have a blackout of 10 hours due to our errors, the Customer will not pay 400 MWh, that will be deducted from the bill at the end of the month.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
and this
Dear Dr. Rossi, the lump sum payment may not be convenient for a customer.
If, for example, the power used varies between 40 MW and 10 MW over time, he will still pay as if he were constantly receiving 40 MW. Even with the 30% discount on the cost of energy, he will pay a lot more.
It would be better, I think, to measure the real energy supplied.
Kind Regards,
Italo R.
Italo Romano:
We adopt the lump sum. Obviously our Clients must order an amount of heat they are sure to consume.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Sounds like he's warming us up for no output measurement by the 'customer'...
BTW, twice now you have thrown in the "libelous" word, and twice now I have had to edit it out. Those type legal words come across as threats, and are not good for open discussion.
SHane,
What I said "...there would be justification for legal proceedings against was not a threat but a statement of fact. Deleting it implies a certain amount of collusion with those making libelous statements and would not look good.
Surely a gentle warning that folk should be more careful is not out of place.
Because I am good at studying Rossi the man.The April 1 2019 countdown is on for me for Rossi to prove that the Ecat has been succesful.To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me
Sam,
“Because you study Andrea Rossi the man”?
How do you study?
Do you know Andrea Rossi personally?
Do you know anyone that does?
We’re you present at any of his demos?
Do you know personally anyone who was?
We’re you privy to his testing procedures?
Do you know personally anyone who was?
Have you seen his Ecat operating?
Do you know personally anyone that has?
Have you ever directly asked him questions?
Do you know personally anyone that has?
I could go on with this line of questioning,
But you get the idea.
My guess is that you would have to answer “NO” to all of the above questions,
Yet somehow you know, based on nothing other than “Rossi Says”, that the Ecat provides Energy Out > Energy In?
My god man, have you ever thought how incredibly gullible this sounds?
Adrian,
Like I said, we do not like armchair legal experts determining what is a legal threat, and I consider you, and your comment just that. Then suggesting my "deleting" is tantamount to "colluding" (with owner nonetheless) is taking it too far. No need for that kind of talk here. As IO noted, you already have liberty to speak freely...maybe more so than others, so it baffles me why you want to push it.
Let this serve as a warning.
Don't think anyone has commented on this yet
Obviously the customer will know if he is getting the ordered heat. Not only from the process results but I Imagine from his instrumentation to measure the quantity and quality of the steam. Rossi won't charge him for heat ot delivered.
Obviously the customer will know if he is getting the ordered heat. Not only from the process result ut I Imagine from his instrumentation to measure the quantity and quality of the steam. Rossi won't charge him for heat ot delivered.
Adrain, are you saying Rossi is lying about this? I've some sympathy with that approach, but still...
Rossi says the customer must determine in advance the power they need, and will be billed for that power, whether they use it or no. See #5810 for details. In this specific case, how Rossi intends to charge a customer, I'd be inclined to go along with your mantra of "Rossi knows more about what he is doing than anyone else".
Interestingly, with this charging policy, Rossi could probably charge 80% of commercial rates and make a profit on a conventional heater. Does he say what his pricing strategy will be?
THH
Adrain, are you saying Rossi is lying about this?
No. What makes you think that?
Rossi says the customer must determine in advance the power they need, and will be billed for that power, whether they use it or no.
This is similar to what utility companies do. The rate you pay for electricity depends on your usage above an agreed amount. A supplier needs to know you will cover the cost of his equipment.
Rossi also said the customer would not be charged for the fill amount when the reactor is down or not working properly ("in error") but only for heat supplied.
say what his pricing strategy will be?
No. Rossi says that is confidential.
40 MW is a LOT of heat and I don't see how that could be faked.
Shane,
I knew I should have refereed you to Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, rather than attempt it myself. I will kw better next time.
Shane,
I knew I should have refereed you to Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, rather than attempt it myself. I will kw better next time.
No need to refer me...DCH will be checking in soon from California. Take care, we still love you.
No need to refer me...DCH will be checking in soon from California.
Shane,
There is a new president at DC&H
His name is I. Fleecum
Recently came over with the merger of
Howard, Fine & Howard.
Roseland, and Adrian.
Probably some of our non-US members, and guests are a bit confused about "Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe". They may see "Dewey", and think we are referring to our very own Dewey Weaver (where have you been BTW?), but we are not. This goes way back in US literature, as a joke about lawyers. Linguistically, English speakers would pronounce this as "Do we cheat them, and how?". Not bashing lawyers, but simply trying to give our friends some background.
"Do we cheat them, and how?"
I read that as "[Boy] do we [ever] cheat them! And how!"
"And how" is an old fashioned expression mean, "Yeah!" Or in this case, "we sure do!"
Webster:
and how
—used to emphasize the preceding idea * having a great time—and how!
First use 1865.
Huey, Dewey and Louie ...
Rends, Zorud and Barty might remember them, EHAPA, Berlin, Disney, Lustiges Taschenbuch. Maybe also Wyttenbach.
But yes, "Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe" is not common in non-english countries, I suspect.
Three stooges?! Larry, Moe und Curly? What's up, doc.
Okay. That's enough ...
