The Playground

  • Zorud, come on....it is the playground so we are just having a little fun. I am making sure not to post any more joke stuff outside this thread.


    Edit: if the moderators feel it is inappropriate I will stop.

  • Slad - Yep - the insulation and plywood for each reactor box are included in the simulation. You should see what happens when the plywood catches fire. Don't fret - it's a pro model - these folks were previously submarine power plant and turbulent combustion professionals.


    Hey Dewey, after a bit of research, I managed to track down your submarine engineer:



    And your turbulent combustion specialist:




    What? He said QuarkX is the size of a pen.....but he didn't say how big the pen was.....


    Stephen, some homework for you:


    What's the critical heat flux of water?
    What's the surface area of a normal pen?
    Based upon your previous answers, is Rossi's claim credible?

  • Dewey - I reported some of your posts here in this playground as trolling and bashing. You provide another angle of view on a couple of aspects on this IH-Rossi saga due to your history with IH/TD, which I like to read and put into perspective to find my own "judgement" on this, but I do not understand why on earth you can't keep on posting your stuff in a common and regular way and language? There is to much personal hate from "your planet"...?


    I do not read Mats Blog at all, have been there very few times and only by following a link from this forum or from ECW (btw, I do not recall having read your name there, and that you have been banned I have read here in this forum...). My only post on ECW so far was with respect to questioning whether there was a chance at all to push and pull huge containers through narrow loading dock doors and that obviously no one next door did recognize any heavy loading or delivery / pick up activities, either for assembly/disassembly of the factory nor an ongoing 1-year "production" that was powered by AR's 1MW container.


    Cheers,

  • @Dewey Weaver: What do you think about me356?


    Let's say he really found the missing step for successful replications.
    He now also is in the phase to optimize and make his reactor and fuel design to run reliable for months and more. So meanwhile he seems to be far ahead of blind try & error, like MFMP and others are doing now.


    The base of this replication is still the isotopic data from the Lugano test, which gave many clues about the fuel composition.


    The missing parts were how to prepare it, and how to trigger the reaction.


    But, let's assume for a moment, when me356 really has COP > 2 with a fuel composition largely based on the Lugano test, wouldn't this imply that Rossi knew this information long before the Lugano test?


    Wouldn't a replication based on the Lugano data improve Rossi's credebility about 100%?


    When Rossi already knew this 2+ years ago, such a replication would automatically imply that Rossi has it as well.


    What could this mean for IH and the law case?

  • What he (Tom P.) said sums this up in a nutshell for me. ME356 results have to independently replicated, that is very simple to me. Mr. Rossi claims are interesting. I don't mean the testing methods and reported results alone. I mean how did IH and lawyers and their experts agree to some of the contract stipulations that have been revealed in the filings? Very interesting indeed.


    BTW, I would like to bring up the EMdrive. I notice cross comments from several members both here and on the various EMdrive forums.
    The difference is that on the EMdrive forums the skeptics are embraced and somewhat appreciated (e.g. Dr Rodal) and here (no names please) they are spit on. And why is that?

  • Barty - very nice for a moderator to take the initiative on behalf of Rossi. I have not forgotten your uneven hand in censorship but we'll check that at the door and move on as long as you're willing to try fair / balanced for a season.


    I'm pulling for me356. I think he wants to be left alone until he is sure of what he has discovered (if anything). A COP of 2 would be newsworthy. Regarding Rossi, he has $11.5M from IH for a paid up license that he has yet to deliver on. He needs to figure out how to deliver on that commitment in the very near future or his problems increase by at least an order of magnitude. That is a promise, not a threat.

  • Rends - you got that one wrong. You're listening to Rossi's story. There are several angles of attack on the IP side. All very strategic and clever. They will melt away or be leveraged as needed.


    What got I wrong? IH filed a patent application that is a copy of the Lugano Report and they let the USPO publish this application in 2016, which is a legal act. So either works the invention, or IH tried to cheat the USPO! And were actually the authors of the Lugano report asked whether their material may be used by IH?

  • Rends - IH no longer believes that the Lugano system worked as claimed. The IR camera settings do not come close to sync with Rossi's thermocouple control data. As a moderator, are you ready to pick up that banner on Rossi's behalf?


    If this is true, then Industrial Heat have to inform the USPO and immediately withdraw the patent application! And you can try to discredit me to take party as long as you want, I am completely independent, impartial and act on the behalf of facts and fact is that there is this valid patent application filed Feb.20,2015 by Industrial Heat, LLC, Raleigh, NC, published by the USPO Feb. 25, 2016 (by the way exact the period of the long term 1MW test) and you are not able to explain why IH copied the Lugano report without permission of the authors and used it in this application for a device they now claim that it is not working.

  • Well done Rends - there is actually not quite the IP urgency that you describe but it does all get fixed with the click of a mouse. With all due respect, IH had the obligation to protect any unintended disclosures by Rossi when he rushed to publish the Lugano study - that filing was a hedge to assist a reckless inventor. We know what we're doing on the IP side dude. Return to "click of a mouse" if you don't understand what I just said.


    In addition, as an LENR-Forum moderator, I respect you but must point out that you have a high degree of familiarity about specifics with Rossi IP. Is that a personal study habit and/or curiosity of yours?

  • [quote='Dewey Weaver','https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3261-The-Playground/?postID=20865#post20865']


    If this is true, then Industrial Heat have to inform the USPO and immediately withdraw the patent application! And you can try to discredit me to take party as long as you want, I am completely independent, impartial and act on the behalf of facts and fact is that there is this valid patent application filed Feb.20,2015 by Industrial Heat, LLC, Raleigh, NC, published by the USPO Feb. 25, 2016 (by the way exact the period of the long term 1MW test) and you are not able to explain why IH copied the Lugano report without permission of the authors and used it in this application for a device they now claim that it is not working.


    That is not true Rends. It would not be in IH's interest nor is there an legal obligation to have it removed before the conclusion of the legal proceedings around this situation.

  • https://thenewfire.files.wordp…_2016_us20160051957a1.pdf


    This IH patent application is a full plagiarism of the Levi et.al Lugano Report (or is it authorized?) ,


    https://thenewfire.files.wordp…t_rossi_lugano_report.pdf


    filed without permission of the original inventor, unauthorized putting in a co-inventor and every user here is able to build an own opinion about what is going on, you both can try to 'explain' what you want, what IH did is considered illegal from any direction.


    http://www.copyright.gov/help/…q-fairuse.html#permission