What's all this "proof" he prattles on about? He's never published a study. I remember a grainy video of a computer monitor showing what looked like a spreadsheet and that was a close as he got.
It's like he saw that napkin flap and thought that was irrefutable proof of the system's viability.
Anyway, for the tower, I contacted one of the GA Tech physicists that answered one of their questions. He distanced himself and said they asked him a specific question about the turbines, which he answered.
That seems to be the modus operandi; they do not engage anyone for a full system analysis. They ask an expert only about a subsystem. And they have never published their calculations on the physics of the sprayers, evaporation and the net effect. All they've ever published is their conclusions claiming that the energy calculator is proprietary which is idiotic. Physics is how the universe works. It's not proprietary. All anyone has asked for is the "physics" and they have always refused. That right there should tell you something; it doesn't work.
They have a couple of choices.
1. It doesn't work at all.
2. It "works" but the net energy is negative; it consumes more than it produces.
3. It "works" and the net energy is positive but it is small.
4. It "works" and the net energy is equivalent to a small nuclear reactor.
Regardless, any legit business would publish the physics. How they achieve it is proprietary. But the physics should be published. Honestly, so far, I think all we've got are a couple ignorant people that read a wiki page and think they know how stuff works.
AI
