The electrical input is defined by the cost of the power paid to the electric utility.
The customer must have measured the amount of steam produced by the E-Cat in order to pay IH for that steam. On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > But unfortunately Axil, there is nothing to compare the bill to. They set > up the factory just for the test in contrast to many of Rossi's early > statements on the matter (if I am recalling correctly). > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 8:00 PM Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> a.ashfield <[email protected]> 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 >>> >>> >>
