Florida Boiler Safety Section information

1st Official Post

    Elsewhere, I mentioned that it does not appear Rossi's reactor or the equipment in his pretend customer site has been inspected by the state of Florida. Florida regulations specify that boilers over a certain size are regulated and must be inspected. Quote:


    Quote

    Water heaters that exceed 400,000 btu/hr heat input [117 kW]; or 210 degrees F at the outlet; or 120 gallons nominal water containing capacity, are classified as hot water supply boilers, and are regulated by the Boiler Safety Section of the Bureau of Fire Prevention, Division of State Fire Marshal.


    https://www.myfloridacfo.com/d…lerSafetyBrochure2015.pdf


    http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Di…tWEBEffective04102016.pdf


    Similar laws apply to other industrial equipment over a certain size. You cannot operate a machine that consumes 1 MW of process heat without a safety inspection certificate.


    If Rossi's reactor actually did produce 1 MW of heat as claimed, it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Boiler Safety Section. I believe it has not been inspected, so Rossi would be in violation of the law and so what his pretend customer J.M. Chemicals. However, it only produces around 20 kW with no excess heat, so it does not need to be inspected.


    Here are some links to the Florida DIVISION OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL, The Bureau of Fire Prevention, Boiler Safety Section.


    http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Di…ml?Action=ShowBoilersPage


    Here is where you can look up a boiler. As far as I know, this is an open database, meaning you can look up any boiler. I believe it is because the regulations specify that anyone operating a boiler has to display the certificate. This is similar to safety certificates for things like elevators. In other words, this is a public document:


    http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Di…ml?Action=ShowBoilersPage


    Axil claimed that Rossi does not own the reactor. The safety codes state that "The Certificate of Compliance issued by the Department shall state the name of the owner or user; the location . . ." Rossi would be the user.


    No, the shell company that IH setup as defined in the licence agreement was the user.

    Quote from axil

    Quote from JedRothwell: “Elsewhere, I mentioned that it does not appear Rossi's reactor or the equipment in his pretend customer site has been inspected by the state of Florida. Florida regulations specify that boilers over a certain size are regulated…


    Are we to believe the good doctor would put a $100million+ deal in jeopardy by not making sure that his equipment is certified and licensed? After all he is the "scientist" running the show here. Are we really to believe that the good doctor would not point out something like this no matter who was responsible..again I mention a $100million+. The logic in here today is fascinating!

    Quote from stephenrenzz

    Are we to believe the good doctor would put a $100million+ deal in jeopardy by not making sure that his equipment is certified and licensed? After all he is the "scientist" running the show here. Are we really to believe that the good doctor would not point out something like this no matter who was responsible..again I mention a $100million+. The logic in here today is fascinating!



    IH owned the reactor. The ERV controlled the test.

    Quote from axil

    IH owned the reactor. The ERV controlled the test.


    You completely deflected from what I said by posting things we already know. If you don't want to address my point...so be it... If you had a $100million+ deal under your arm, would you as an engineer overlook certification...something that engineers deal with. It's a simple point.

    Quote from axil

    IH owned the reactor. The ERV controlled the test.


    Whoever owns or rents an industrial site is responsible for the operation of the equipment there, and must ensure it is properly inspected. As far as I know, Leonardo Corp. rents the space in Florida where the reactor was installed.


    Rossi also owns the pretend customer site, where the pretend 1 MW of heat is going. Or if he does not own it, he might as well. He had the keys; he was the only person seen going into the site; he personally decided not to allow I.H. experts in; and his lawyer is the company officer of record. So he must be buddy-buddy with the mysterious hidden fantasy British owners.


    The Boiler Safety Section people do not care whether the ERV "controlled the test" or not. They will hold responsible whoever rents or owns the site, and operates the equipment.

    Responsible for what?


    Has there been an accident?


    Do you think that an inventor with paradigm shift in his pocket will care a lot about the proper way to do things?

    Quote from Keieueue

    Responsible for what?


    Has there been an accident?


    Do you think that an inventor with paradigm shift in his pocket will care a lot about the proper way to do things?


    I can only assume you are being sarcastic with those questions unless you have not comprehended a single thing said today.


    1. Responsible for certification/licensing


    2. No clue if there has been an accident...that is irrelevant.


    3. If said inventor had $100million on the line for a deal going through...HELL YES!! Only a true idiot would not!!!!


    I know its Friday, but you gotta keep up Keieueueueueu....

    How is it irrelevant when Jed mentions "Boiler Safety Section people"? what makes people mad about him is that he disregards standard procedures (ex he nearly blew up people)


    Do you think $100million is worth much when you've got paradigm shift in your pocket? that's peanuts

    Quote from Keieueue

    How is it irrelevant when Jed mentions "Boiler Safety Section people"? what makes people mad about him is that he disregards standard procedures (ex he nearly blew up people)


    Do you think $100million is worth much when you've got paradigm shift in your pocket? that's peanuts



    Since the ERV had authority over the setup and performance of the test, the ERV was responsible.

    The deflection forces today on Planet Rossi is quite strong! The fact that no one would put themselves in that kind of jeopardy as an engineer that has $89million hanging in the balance on this deal is obviously so far over both of your heads....you can spin it any way you want, but that is just ridiculous to ignore.

    Quote from stephenrenzz

    The deflection forces today on Planet Rossi is quite strong! The fact that no one would put themselves in that kind of jeopardy as an engineer that has $89million hanging in the balance on this deal is obviously so far over both of your heads....you can spin it any way you want, but that is just ridiculous to ignore.


    The situation is well defined in the agreements signed between Rossi and IH. This situation will be confirmed by a legal interpretation revealed in court with regards to that situation.

    The rules are vastly different in what is allowed in "commercial operation" and in a "research and development experiment", which the IH/Rossi test iwas. In an R&D environment, it is assumed that the participants understand and are assuming any possible risk from experimental devices.

    Quote from Warthog

    The rules are vastly different in what is allowed in "commercial operation" and in a "research and development experiment", which the IH/Rossi test iwas.


    The use of reactors and boilers for research is covered in the Florida safety laws. So are antique boilers used with historic equipment and various other categories. I cannot find the section on research equipment, but I recall it is limited to ~10 kW and it has to be installed someplace such as university or a properly equipped laboratory.


    You do not get a free pass for R&D reactors. They think of everything. The only one I can find at the moment is: "'Antique Boiler' means any closed vessel used solely for display and demonstration purposes, in which water is heated, steam is superheated, or any combination thereof . . ."


    http://www.fldfs.com/Division/…tWEBEffective04102016.pdf

    Quote from Warthog

    The rules are vastly different in what is allowed in "commercial operation" and in a "research and development experiment", which the IH/Rossi test iwas. In an R&D environment, it is assumed that the participants understand and are assuming any possible risk from experimental devices.


    It ceases to be pure R&D when you are using it for a commercial enterprise. Ie: selling heat to a customer for $1000 a day, for a year.

    Quote from axil

    Since the ERV had authority over the setup and performance of the test, the ERV was responsible.


    As I said elsewhere, Florida boiler safety inspectors would not see it that way. Whatever company owns or rents the facility is responsible for the equipment in it. If inspectors find a boiler which is not certified, or if a boiler causes an accident, the company owners and officers cannot get away with saying: "Oh, our ERV Dr. Penon is responsible. You'll have to arrest him. We have nothing to do with this. See? We have a contract with a company in North Carolina . . ."


    They don't care about contracts. If you own the company which pays the rent, you are liable for an accident. They don't care whether you were present that day, or whether you were never in the building. Penon might also be responsible, since I am sure he has no operator license for Florida. He probably has no training or knowledge either, judging by his calorimetry. (Assuming it is his.)

    Quote from JedRothwell


    As I said elsewhere, Florida boiler safety inspectors would not see it that way. Whatever company owns or rents the facility is responsible for the equipment in it. If inspectors find a boiler which is not certified, or if a boiler causes an accident, the company owners and officers cannot get away with saying: "Oh, our ERV Dr. Penon is responsible. You'll have to arrest him. We have nothing to do with this. See? We have a contract with a company in North Carolina . . ."


    They don't care about contracts. If you own the company which pays the rent, you are liable for an accident. They don't care whether you were present that day, or whether you were never in the building. Penon might also be responsible, since I am sure he has no operator license for Florida. He probably has no training or knowledge either, judging by his calorimetry. (Assuming it is his.)


    It looks like Henry W Johnson president of KMC was responsible for the property of the customer who was incorporated out of England.

    Quote from axil

    It looks like Henry W Johnson president of KMC was responsible for the property of the customer who was incorporated out of England.


    The England part is a complete fantasy AFAIK. Do you have evidence for that? Did you make it up? Did you hear it from Rossi?

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