Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Quote

    But we don't need to hear it [anti-Rossi rhetoric] over and over again like a broken record.

    We hear repeated anti-Rossi reasoning and rhetoric because we are constantly deluged with inane pro-Rossi illogic from @Adrian Ashfield, sam12, and a few others. Leaving their "reports" (Rossifiction) alone would imply that those reports are not defective. Want to avoid a skeptical broken record? Then stop reporting garbage.

    Go on then. More details of Rossi's irresistable pricing scheme:


    1. Robert Dorr August 13, 2018 at 4:36 PM

      Dear DR. Rossi,

      Herta Hoster asked you how much the customer would save using your reactors instead of the customers current system and you indicated roughly 20%. It was a bit unclear to me if you meant that they would save 20% or that they would spend 20% of what they are currently spending. So if the customer is spending $100 for there current system would they now be spending $20 with your new reactors or would they be spending $80 with your new reactors? Sorry if this is redundant I just want to have a clear picture of the savings your reactors will provide. I am very excited that you are getting so close to the introduction of your of new power system.

      Sincerely,

      Robert Dorr

    2. Andrea Rossi August 14, 2018 at 5:34 AM

      Robert Dorr:

      If our Customers now are spending 100, with the Ecat plants they will spend 80 and the price will be indexed with the variation of the market price, to maintain the 20% of earning for the Customer.

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.


    Also this...


    1. Frank Acland August 14, 2018 at 6:57 AM

      Dear Andrea,

      When you say that the cost of E-Cat heat will be “indexed with the variation of the market price”, do you mean:

      1. That it will always be 20 per cent less expensive than whatever the customer would normally use (e.g. natural gas)?

      2. That if the price of (for example) natural gas rises, the cost of E-Cat heat will also rise?

      Many thanks,

      Frank Acland

    2. Andrea Rossi August 14, 2018 at 8:58 AM

      Frank Acland:

      1- yes

      2- no

      Warm Regards,

      A.R.


    Not sure if that means that his price can go down but not up? Does this make sense to anyone?

    Quote from Grafiker

    Does this make sense to anyone

    It may mean (but with Rossi, it is very hard to understand anything clearly) that he is not pegging it to natural gas. Perhaps he will just be using electric power and not gas. The question then is: will the cost to the customer go up with increases in electric utility power costs?

    And here another JONP comment from Rossi regarding SMRs (small modular reactors)

    Well, this 5mil/MWel capital costs seems like a bargain in comparison to the 1mil (and finally 10mil) IH paid for the useless 1MWth container from Rossi. 8o

    There are many ways a company can save 20% on its energy bills. There are all sorts of power purchase agreements to be had that do at least as well based on various renewables as well as demand management and other techniques. So, it stands to reason that an enterprise that makes use of 20 MW of power (presumably on a continuous basis) would be eager to install an untested black box based on an unknown and unproven technology and operated from afar by a controversial character with a checkered past to achieve that result. It is no wonder they would need to keep it secret. Otherwise, the men in white coats would be at their door within the hour.

    Quote from interested observer

    So, it stands to reason that an enterprise that makes use of 20 MW of power (presumably on a continuous basis) would be eager to install an untested black box based on an unknown and unproven technology and operated from afar by a controversial character with a checkered past to achieve that result. It is no wonder they would need to keep it secret. Otherwise, the men in white coats would be at their door within the hour.

    Didn't he say 40 MW?


    Okay, let's say it is 20 MW of heat, probably low grade heat. Very few factories need that. Something like an industrial scale lumber kiln is the only thing I can think of offhand. That's a very large insulated warehouse. 1 or 2 MW of low grade heat is all you need to heat a large shopping mall, for example.


    The combined heat and power generator at Cornell has two late model efficient generators of 15 MW of electric power capacity each. The waste heat that can be distributed to the campus is probably about ~30 MW as well. That's a campus with 608 buildings on 2000 acres. So, you can see there are not many places that need 20 or 40 MW of heat.


    https://energyandsustainabilit…eating/production/cep.cfm


    Anyway, the whole discussion is lunacy because, as I have pointed out before, it wouldn't only be men in white coats. It would also be the police and every state and federal regulatory agency. You would NEVER, EVER, EVER be allowed to operate a large scale nuclear power source that works by unknown principles, that has not been safety tested and certified. If they found you were doing that, there would dozens of police cars and swat teams at your door within a half hour. I mean that. No exaggeration. Regulators do not have police powers. They cannot arrest you. But they can inform authorities, including the police, who sure can arrest you.


    Never mind nuclear power -- if they found out you had a large, conventional boiler that had not been inspected and might not be safe, it would be like finding rats in a restaurant. They would close you down immediately.


    That goes twice for a heat source remote controlled from a distant site. That alone has to violate dozens of regulations. It is unthinkable.


    Any company that accepted any of these conditions, or tried to use the technology, would be headline news in every mass media outlet. Every responsible person in the company would be doing a perp-walk to jail in front of the press. It would be the worst public relations fiasco in corporate history. The only thing I can think of that it might resemble this would be a major airline that transports passengers in a jet with a remote control pilot only, like a drone, and no pilot on board, without telling anyone. The airline would be put out of business tomorrow. There would be Congressional investigations and everyone involved would end up in prison.



    For these reasons, and many others, Rossi's latest story is a preposterous fantasy. It is amazing to me that any technically educated person would believe a word of it. Some other reasons would be that a machine of this size would cost hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to develop, even if there were no regulatory issues. Rossi does not have that kind of money.

    A few corrections:

    1. The babbler talking about Rossi posting questions on ECW doesn't know what he's talking about. Rossi doesn't post on ECW. I suppose he has never seen Rossi's blog.


    2. The 40 MW plant is just in discussion. There is no contract. I hope he starts with a smaller plant.


    3. Any large company would be interested in cutting energy costs by 20% The cost to connect to Rossi's plant is pocket change and would be repaid for in a couple of weeks. The risk is negligible for a plant with an existing energy supply.


    4. It is not as difficult as Jed makes out to get approval in an industrial setting.


    I could go on, but why bother? You prefer making ad hominem attacks on Rossi.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.