When I was working out the resonant frequency, I don't think I could work out the actual volume of the sounds. The main stream pipe would probably sound something like the background rumble of the Enterprise NCC 1701-D.
And similar to the background rumble of the Enterprise, the volume of this sound would be sufficient to travel through the vacuum of space to an observing satellite camera's microphone. 
No, the inside sound. TNG ship.
Like a supertanker moving at 30 knots.
Hört...hört...
If Rossi now says no "we are working on it", he more less contradicts his many previous confirmations from months ago, that he has entered into a partnership with a leading globally active company ("one of the highest echelons"). If real, such a partner would of course not allow him his clownish presentation and silly posting on his blog...
IMHO this fits nicely into what we currently can see and read, and is again a confirmation that nothing new or important has happened, except a strange "publication" and a blue box tinkered in his condo...
Dear Andrea,
Prof wrote, and you agreed, that the installation of 1 million 1MW E-Cat plants in a relatively short period of time would not be impossible if you partnered with a major company in the field.
Of course this would involve huge amounts of organization, money and manpower to accomplish.
My question is, do you think this kind of partnership is a real possibility, or just a faint hope?
Kind regards,
Frank Acland
Frank Acland:
We are working on it,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
I found this post interesting and applicable to your endeavor:
A study conducted by a team led by Robert Gross of Imperial College London and published in December 2018, concluded that, on average, the adoption time of the last four major power-generation technologies was 43 years. And by the end of that time, these technologies were well established, but not yet in a dominant position.
https://www.resilience.org/sto…t-of-energy-technologies/
Regards and best wishes,
Ivan Idso
Ivan Idso:
Thank you for the interesting link,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Alan and Shane,
Thank you for your commitment to this blog
I appreciate your time, effort and dilligence to keep people on task.
Ecats world has relegated most of my posts to the ether, so no reason to go there anymore.
I simply cannot take the lunacy of Rossi supporters any longer and am taking my leave of LENR-forum.com.
I will check back with you on March 1st 2020
(It is on my calendar), to see if anything in the science world of LENR has changed.
Thanks for allowing me my .02¢
Good luck
Roseland67 Thanks for the thanks- remember 'you can check out, but you can never leave'!
Thank you for the complimentary farewell Rose. Too bad you are leaving us right before the real action kicks in. By the time you come back in a year, the planet will be saved and you will have missed out on the action. 
Rossi is just a circus side show to entertain us until it happens.
Take care.
Display MoreAlan and Shane,
Thank you for your commitment to this blog
I appreciate your time, effort and dilligence to keep people on task.
Ecats world has relegated most of my posts to the ether, so no reason to go there anymore.
I simply cannot take the lunacy of Rossi supporters any longer and am taking my leave of LENR-forum.com.
I will check back with you on March 1st 2020
(It is on my calendar), to see if anything in the science world of LENR has changed.
Thanks for allowing me my .02¢
Good luck
By then we will know who owes the drink.
Darden fueled the reactor (purposely with the incorrect fuel mix, as he admitted later) right before it was sent to Boeing.
Why?
Display MoreAlan and Shane,
Thank you for your commitment to this blog
I appreciate your time, effort and dilligence to keep people on task.
Ecats world has relegated most of my posts to the ether, so no reason to go there anymore.
I simply cannot take the lunacy of Rossi supporters any longer and am taking my leave of LENR-forum.com.
I will check back with you on March 1st 2020
(It is on my calendar), to see if anything in the science world of LENR has changed.
Thanks for allowing me my .02¢
Good luck
By March 1, 2020, rest assured that much will have happened here, none of which having any real significance.
Why?
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rvd-depositions/#Cassarino
Not sure if Darden ever explained why he gave the Boeing tester (Childress) fake fuel. I have not read Chidress' depo in a while, but maybe if you read it you will find your answer. At the least, it is an interesting read, as are all the depos.
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rvd-depositions/#Cassarino
Not sure if Darden ever explained why he gave the Boeing tester (Childress) fake fuel. I have not read Chidress' depo in a while, but maybe if you read it you will find your answer. At the least, it is an interesting read, as are all the depos.
Your comment (“fake fuel”) insinuates that IH wanted to mislead Boeing.
When I read the deposition from Chidress, I can’t find anywhere that he felt misled.
Darden wrote him in a e-mail: "I was hopeful, but also worried due to the change I made to the fuel based on the material supply issue."
I can’t find anything in the deposition which indicates that Chidress wouldn’t have been informed in advance of that.
Statements against his own interest are likely to be facts.
Yes, this is a good inductive touchpoint. Note that you're using the couched inductive terms "likely to be facts" instead of what you were saying before, "PROOF" when all it really was , was a measure of how strongly you felt about the evidence.
Statement against interest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_against_interest
In United States law, a statement against interest is a statement made by a person which places them in a less advantageous position than if they had not made the statement and is as a consequence deemed credible as evidence (usually within a legal trial). For example, if a driver in an automobile accident boasts publicly that they were speeding, it may represent a legal admission of liability. It is analogous to the criminal equivalent, the statement against penal interest which is a statement that puts the person making the statement at risk of prosecution.
Sending a reactor to Boeing without disclosing that to Rossi?
***Is that evidence that IH was trying to steal Rossi's "worthless" IP?
Not providing Boeing with the correct fuel mix?
***Strange. They said it was due to material shortages.
Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix?
***Getting more strange.
Display MoreSending a reactor to Boeing without disclosing that to Rossi?
***Is that evidence that IH was trying to steal Rossi's "worthless" IP?
Not providing Boeing with the correct fuel mix?
***Strange. They said it was due to material shortages.
Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix?
***Getting more strange.
Not providing Boeing with the correct fuel mix?
Strange. They said it was due to material shortages.
Not strange, unless you are a conspiracy theorist. They had very limited tech expertise and I can easily imagine them not having enough stuff to make the fuel - especially if that came from a small amount of hard to get ingredients originally supplied by Rossi
Without disclosing to Boeing that it wasn't the correct fuel mix?
Getting more strange.
Again, not getting more strange. Think about it from their POV. they hyad inconsistent results: Rossi's tests (and tester guy) say all is good. Yet other ways to test output seem inconsistent. They just did not have any high powered tech guys of their own, Did not think at that stage they would need them given all those easy to build reactors working indisputably as stated by the Swedes.
So they need some independent (secret - because doing this would send Rossi into a big big tizz - known fact of Rossi's reaction to anyone questioning whether his stuff works) and competent guys who will validate. preferably interested enough to do this cheaply. Hence Boeing.
Induction as KevMo reminds us is a useful tool in working out what is likley. What he does not remind us is that it's use in practice depends on bayesian probability theory - as done properly taking seriously the attempt to determine prior probabilities by Ed Jaynes and others:
https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf
Most of the disagreements here relate to differing assignments of prior probabilities to the hypotheses being tested. Since working out, in complex real world situations, what these should be is inherently difficult this is not surprising.
But also not a reason to be impolite, or use rhetoric.
Your comment (“fake fuel”) insinuates that IH wanted to mislead Boeing.
When I read the deposition from Chidress, I can’t find anywhere that he felt misled.
Darden wrote him in a e-mail: "I was hopeful, but also worried due to the change I made to the fuel based on the material supply issue."
I can’t find anything in the deposition which indicates that Chidress wouldn’t have been informed in advance of that.
Yes, from that excerpt, I stand corrected in writing "fake". It is not clear whether it was intentional to rule out some placebo effect, or simply the "material supply issue". Nonetheless, fuel mixture is known to be critical to most successful LENR reactions, and IH knew beforehand that the fuel they gave Boeing for testing was not optimal. IMO, Boeing should have been fully informed of that beforehand. At the least, it was rude of IH to lead them to believe they were there to test the real deal, when in fact they were not. Especially so when taking into consideration Boeing offered their time and talents free of charge.
And if you look further in that exchange, it muddies the picture as to intent. In particular pg 115, where Childress sent a follow up email to ask he be provided "the correct fuel"...in order to determine the Ecat's validity, along wth some other requests. TD never complied, and Boeing was never given another chance to test. Why?
...... easy to build reactors working indisputably as stated by the Swedes.
Where did this information come from?
They clearly were easy to build, cos IH, with not much tech capability, built a load of them. The swedes in their Lugano report and (less clearly) in the preceding report, gave independent validation that this stuff worked. Darden spoke on how their reactors (a whole batch) all worked when tested with Rossi's method - pretty clear this was as Lugano since reactors were Lugano clones.
Which bit don't you like?
So a mixture of supposition about IH's technical capacity and a report of two experiments. Reading your comment with it's all-embracing tone i thought you were referring to grander claims by the Swedes that I had somehow overlooked.
IMO, Boeing should have been fully informed of that beforehand. At the least, it was rude of IH to lead them to believe they were there to test the real deal, when in fact they were not. Especially so when taking into consideration Boeing offered their time and talents free of charge.
Are you sure that IH didn’t tell them beforehand?
It seems to me that when Darden’s writes in the e-mail to Childress "I was hopeful, but also worried due to the change I made to the fuel based on the material supply issue" he is talking about something which both parties are already aware.
Anyway, in case that they didn’t tell Boeing in advance, a simple explanation would be that they couldn’t get exactly the same ingredients (e.g from the same supplier Rossi told IH), so they tried the best substitute and didn’t tell Boeing (exactly what they did) because it would reveal part of the IP of the fuel.
Keep in mind: The secret fuel recipe, which Rossi had given to IH only after he received the 10 mio, could include such exotic ingredients as powder from a grinded horn of a unicorn.
Rossi might very well have taken precautions which make it very difficult for IH (or anyone else) to create exactly “his” fuel mix.
QuoteAnd if you look further in that exchange, it muddies the picture as to intent. In particular pg 115, where Childress sent a follow up email to ask he be provided "the correct fuel"...in order to determine the Ecat's validity, along wth some other requests. TD never complied, and Boeing was never given another chance to test. Why?
Firstly, it makes sense to me that Childress asked for a unit with the “correct” fuel, after the attempt to measure excess heat from a unit with a “slightly modified fuel” failed completely (no excess heat at all).
And for me the simplest answer to your question “WHY didn’t IH send one” would be: Because IH couldn’t fullfill the requirements from Childress, which were:
1. The unit has the correct fuel in it
2. The unit is preminarly tested by IH and shows that it works
3. The unit has to be delivered within a couple of weeks
