tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post1290393739383990150..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: JUNE 20, 2016 START OF A DISCUSSION RE. ETHICAL ASPECTS OF LENRGeorgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-63202036455289451482016-06-20T18:37:02.261-07:002016-06-20T18:37:02.261-07:00Peter
Interesting reply to question I asked on Eca...Peter<br />Interesting reply to question I asked on Ecat<br />World.<br /><br />sam cashmemorz<br />4 hours ago<br />Do you know why it is so important that I.H. have the theory on how the Ecat works.<br />Thanks<br />0 Reply<br />−<br /> Avatar<br />cashmemorz sam<br />an hour ago<br />This point about theory is what I would want if I were in the place of Industrial Heat/ Darden. This seems to me a reasonable expectation of having the theory for something that appears to work. An ERV report is OK. However it takes you only so far. By "so far" I mean that if anything were to go wrong with the E-Cat during operation it would be much better to know, according to theory, what precisely is going wrong. This allows one to make more realistic and practical allowances and/or preparations in case the same problem comes up. This is a requirement that any large professional organization would want to insure stable operation. Having a unit that does work but is not known how it works makes the unit at more risk of instability if something goes wrong. With "the" theory as opposed to "some idea of how it "might" work" one has greater power over the ability to make correction in short order. Without "the " theory the user can never know if something major negative will happen or why. Its a matter of assurance that everything is oK. or better than without a theory. Investors would prefer investing in something that is known how it works as opposed to it just working.<br /><br />The comparison of a just working unit with other existing power units such as "dangerously lethal kerosine heaters" and the like is a fine rebuttal if one is willing to live with partially understood energy producing, potentially dangerous machinery. But as ENG 48 has once stated in an answer to me, "do you want a NUCLEAR REACTOR in your basement" that no one knows how it works? Its a matter of feeling more safe than less safe if one can help it.<br /><br />I have ordered two domestic E-CATs. I don't, similar to ENG 48, expect to get it until the certification body gives its blessing, when the theory behind it is put together, when it is considered safe for unattended operation, unlike an industrial unit that will have 24/7 care and control by trained personnel.<br />1 Reply<br />−<br /> Avatar<br />cashmemorz cashmemorz<br />an hour ago<br />Edit: There is also the competitiveness of the unit that has solid theory behind it. Brillouin, for instance, claims to have a working theory for their version of LENR unit. I am certain that investors and potential buyers would prefer to look into Brillouin's units over Leonardo's units for just that reason. That Leonardo's units have a higher COP means less under such competitive edge.<br /><br />Something that I noticed about what other bloggers are saying. That because IH is having second thoughts then they must be trying to get something for nothing. Not necessarily. This interpretation of their actions is, for me, is just a negative approach to what IH may actually be doing. It is just as possible or even morelikely that IH have good intentions for the E-Cat , the investors, Rossi and everyone who might want to buy the units.<br />Samsam northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268558018307793474noreply@blogger.com