QuoteBattle lines are drawn. Rossi says he will begin SK production this January 2019. I think that is what Adrian predicted? If so, good on him. Good to see we have a defined timeline, after which the winning side will have bragging rights. While it remains to be determined how, exactly, we will know he has started production, I say let the best man win.
Is that a joke? We've had "defined timelines" from Rossi et. al. since 2011. There is nothing to win. Rossi is simply a crook.
Is that a joke? We've had "defined timelines" from Rossi et. al. since 2011. There is nothing to win. Rossi is simply a crook.
Must have been those shrooms I had last night. 
Here on planet earth, that arrangement would violate a dozen safety regulations. No sane equipment manager or engineer would even think of allowing it. They would lose their licenses if they did. They might end up in jail. They might even kill someone by accident. Equipment on this scale is extremely dangerous. As you see in this video:
As far as one can tell, Rossi's QX & 5lkW SK are quite safe. They shut down in seconds once the power is off. They do not male dangerous radiation. They would be monitored continuously in order to operate at all. Individual reactors are only 1 cm long and would lose the plasma if the case were broken, They are contained remotely from the customers [;amt. They don't contain the large amount of water that a boiler does.
As there are no written regulations for it, government inspectors wouldn't have a clue. Perhaps you are in favor of a ten year delay while they figure it out. It's nuclear! Gasp.
People such as AA who believe these absurd fantasies peddled by Rossi have no knowledge of actual heavy HVAC equipment, boilers, regulations, or common sense safety precautions. AA claims he does, but the fact that believes this nonsense belies his claim.
I have built complete manufacturing plants and been responsible for dozens of others. Not clear to me why you think wandering through a few HVAC operations makes you think you know more about safety than I do.
Some Green nut case complained to the authorities about Rossi demonstrating a nuclear device at Stockholm. As a result, Rossi can't demonstrate the SK working in January. I expect you are pleased. Government inspectors are not very imaginative. A hos[ital was built actually on the St Andreas fault line because it was not against regulations. I bet the land was dirt cheap.
THH. For the fourth time. Yes or no?
I skip commentts from the babblers as they are always repeats or juvenile jokes. Perhaps Shane would be good enough to let meknow in the unlikely event of a new thought.
QuoteSome Green nut case complained to the authorities about Rossi demonstrating a nuclear device at Stockholm. As a result, Rossi can't demonstrate the SK working in January. I expect you are pleased.
No, I'm not. But I bet Rossi is. The previous Stockholm demo didn't convince any main line scientists but maybe it did enable Rossi to screen for dummie investors. But magicians don't like to perform the same sleight of hand twice to the same audience.
THH. For the fourth time. Yes or no?
Adrian. I do you the courtesy of believing you are honest, and wish to establish and discuss truth.
How could anyone honestly answer yes or no to this question about "do customers validate Rossi?".
I've given a definition of what customer validation would satisfy me. Too long for you to read, I know.
Let's put it this way. Short enough for you to read. To say NO would be silly - big independent customers open about the wonderful new cost-saving power source, with money saved larger than possible Rossi subsidy, would be definitive proof. If Rossi were for real this should emerge next year (or 2 years ago, previous Rosi promisses, or 4 years ago, earlier Rossi promisses). Rossi has a well-developed cyclic program for his schemes.
To say YES would be equally silly. Rossi claimed for 18 months + to have a genuine customer at Doral making Platinum sponge. IH got invoices for power from this customer. Yet we discover (only from Court mandated Disclosure) that this was just Rossi pretending.
It sure convinced a lot of people for a long time!
THH
QuoteAdrian. I do you the courtesy of believing you are honest, and wish to establish and discuss truth.
Of course Adrian is honest and wants to establish the truth. Why on earth would you ever doubt it? It's just that he has a strange perspective on how one goes about doing that. What it will take to convince him is for someone to catch Rossi in flagrante delicto and even that may not do it. He's a pretty hard case!
How could anyone honestly answer yes or no to this question about "do customers validate Rossi?".
If hundreds of customers, using GWs of heat, are happy, which would take over a year, common sense would tell most people that the reactors worked.
It wouldn't need an independent test, nor theory, nor measuring the input power by the customers.
edited typo
Rossi told us and you he had many satisfied 1MW customers, years ago. Any clue why nobody did notice? He and you live on Planet Rossi. That is far from here and reality...
As far as one can tell, Rossi's QX & 5lkW SK are quite safe. They shut down in seconds once the power is off. They do not male dangerous radiation. They would be monitored continuously in order to operate at all.
Oh, okay. "As far as one can tell" should be fine, then. They can ignore all the safety regulations and not bother installing the instruments that show the input and output energy, because as far as one can tell, it's safe. How jolly!
That goes right right along with how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will say, "hey, we have no idea how this works, and no one has tested it, but as far as we can tell it is safe, so . . . no worries! Go ahead and use it!" See:
I have built complete manufacturing plants and been responsible for dozens of others. Not clear to me why you think wandering through a few HVAC operations makes you think you know more about safety than I do.
I think so because I have read the safety regulations and I know what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is tasked with. You, on the other hand, think that anyone can ignore regulations when "as far as one can tell" it is probably safe. (How can one tell, by the way? What tests have been done?) You apparently think the U.S. and state and local regulators wouldn't care if someone set up a megawatt scale nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles in a populated area. You think Rossi could do that anytime. You have a screw loose if you sincerely believe that.
Oh, okay. "As far as one can tell" should be fine, then. They can ignore all the safety regulations and not bother installing the instruments that show the input and output energy, because as far as one can tell, it's safe. How jolly!
You (or at least an engineer) can tell if something is likely to be dangerous. The SK isn't like a nuclear plant. Planes can fall out of the sky. Automobiles kill >30,000 people per year.
Can you provide a single realistic danger from the SK from what we know about it? I didn't think so. You also assume the people designing the reactor (who know most about it) will not take safety into consideration just as well as the government.
I am not persuaded that reading some government manual is the same as being responsible for safety and having had many discussions with government inspectors on site. You are clueless about how it works in practice.
edited typo
He uses the name of a retired old academic, deceived like Sergio Focardi.
For the next imaginary "product" (and for jonp chattering throughout the 2019) it can suggest SF.
Another masterpiece obviously.
Sergio Focardi was not deceived at all by Rossi in regards to the E-Cat technology. Focardi worked extensively with Piantelli and successfully built and tested a large number of nickel-hydrogen reactors before he ever met Andrea Rossi. All Rossi did, at first, was enhance the existing Ni-H technology by adding palladium in a way that coated the nickel surface with nano-particles to enhance hydrogen absorption. Then, he added a variety of atomic hydrogen sources. These first devices, in concept, were not too conceptually different than the ones Focardi worked on with Piantelli. The difference is that they produced far higher outputs that Focardi was allowed to devise methods to measure. There's no way Focardi was tricked or deceived when he tested these early systems. My understanding is that they were tested via many different forms of calorimetry. To suggest that Focardi was naive idiot that Rossi was manipulating is sickening. Now, I don't think that Focardi knew much of anything about Rossi's later systems. The "hot cat" designs came much later.
Display MoreYou (or at least an engineer) can tell if something is likely to be dangerous. The SK isn't like a nuclear plant. Planes can fall out of the sky. Automobiles kill >30,000 people per year.
Can you provide a single realistic danger from the SK from what we know about it? I didn't think so. You also assume the people designing the reactor (who know most about it) will not take safety into consideration just as well as the government.
I am not persuaded that reading some government manual is the same as being responsible for safety and having had many discussions with government inspectors on site. You are clueless about how it works in practice.
edited typo
The only potential danger I see from the Quark is the production of radiation that could, in theory, if not shielded, escape the reactor IF adequate measures are not taken. But I think this danger is very minimal. There's virtually no chance of a conventional nuclear meltdown. The powers that be have no right to say diddly squat about the Quark. I have read about a company that has repeatedly released toxic chemicals into a local river killing every single fish for perhaps a hundred miles down river. Since they were producing something for the military, they were simply ordered to restock the rivers and got a tiny slap on the wrist.
If hundreds of customers, using GWs of heat, are happy, which would take over a year, common sense would tell most people that the reactors worked.
It wouldn't need an independent test, nor theory, nor measuring the input power by the customers.
edited typo
Yes indeed. No skeptic here disputes that - just we think it vanishingly unlikely it will happen.
Oh - BTW Rossi saying he has 100s of customers is not the same as those 100s of customers existing. So we'd need to hear from them, with customers validating details of the GWs of power from Rossi. If you read my OP that is exactly what I said would convince me.
We have been through this before, over a year. Many people had high expectations initially, after all even one genuine customer using 1MW of power generated from low power draw is definite validation, but the customer turned out to be Rossi himself not actually using power.
@Director
If the quark works as claims then it induces nuclear reactions of a not understood type in a not understood fashion generating very large amounts of power.
No responsible nuclear regulatory authority could overlook that on the basis of internet comment and I've seen no serious validated safety analysis - mainly I suspect because it is difficult to validate something that does not work.
In fact I don't think validated safety is at all possible without more information on precisely what reactions are happening, etc.
You (or at least an engineer) can tell if something is likely to be dangerous.
Yeah, okay, so if an engineer can tell it is not likely to be dangerous, it is perfectly okay to ignore safety regulations. You don't need need to measure input power. When the safety inspector comes, you say, "input power is Rossi's trade secret, so we didn't include any of the equipment mandated by your silly old laws." The inspector will say: "Oh, okay. Sorry to bother you. Carry on." He'll post an operator license on the door.
The SK isn't like a nuclear plant. Planes can fall out of the sky. Automobiles kill >30,000 people per year.
It isn't like a nuclear plant?? Then what is it? Where does the heat come from, assuming there is heat. It sure as hell isn't a combustion plant.
Any heater or boiler that produces megawatts of heat is dangerous, by the way. That's why they have all those pesky regulations about thermometers and power meters that you claim you & Rossi are free to ignore. Because you are engineers. I would love to see you tell that to a state safety inspector.
Can you provide a single realistic danger from the SK from what we know about it? I didn't think so.
Since no one has tested the SK, no one has the slightest idea whether it is safe or not. The law does not assume that a product is safe as the default. You have to prove it is safe, by testing it. The government does not allow car makers to sell cars because they have not yet been tested yet. It does not allow drug companies to sell drugs that have not yet been tested. Boeing is not allowed to fly passengers on airplanes that have never been flight tested. They have to test the products first, before they can sell them.
Most people know that. It is surprising that you do not know it, since you say you have built factories. I would like to know where these factories are, because I would not want to go within a mile of one of them, given your extreme ignorance and you crazy notions about regulations and safety. You must be the person who designed those James Bond movie evil bad guy hideouts, that self-destruct when Bond short circuits one machine, or pours acid on the floor.
Do you seriously think products can be sold before they are safety tested?!? Or are you just playing mind games and trolling us?
The SK, in a nutshell, is ball lightning in a quartz tube. There are many differences and nuances, but that is the simplest version of the truth -- in my opinion. With a variety of purposes in mind, spheromak like plasmas have been modeled, produced, and tested. Modern science knows their structure, their composition, and their capabilities. Without a doubt, it is known and accepted that these structures are capable of inducing nuclear reactions with evidence including transmutation products and a wide array of emissions. Depending upon the gaseous feedstock and whatever nano-particles you include in the plasma, you can produce gammas, neutrons, alphas, and especially x-rays and electron emissions. One thing I've never, ever heard of is any type of disaster taking place from any of these experiments. Maybe in some classified facilities such as the one out west with the Shiva Star capacitor bank, some horrible nuclear calamity could have been covered up. But nothing happens. The closest thing to an incident I can think of is when that famous Caltech scientist, Feynmann if I remember correctly, stupidly and idiotically pulled the plug on the control system of a Papp Engine and produced an explosion that killed a few people. Even then, I don't think any type of nuclear contamination was detected: the damage was all conventional from flying scrapnel and debris. The same explosion could happen from improperly handling a gas canister that's available for purchase at almost any gas station in my town. The desire for an SK to be required to undergo exhaustive safety testing and be heavily regulated by the NRC is ridiculous, in my opinion. If anything, it would be the duty of the NRC to catch up on LENR -- a technology they and the government have denied even exists -- rather than experimentalists or industrialists having to bend over backwards to satisfy them. Since I think the Quark and SK likely work very roughly how Rossi claims, I hope he moves forward as rapidly as his finances will allow and the NRC stay far away from him and any company that utilizes his reactors.
We need rapid progress to transform our civilization into one that can be sustainable. And with the global collapse (socially, economically, morally, environmentally, etc) accelerating every day, the relatively safe Quark -- leaps and bounds safer than any traditional nuclear reactor by orders of magnitude -- should be developed at the fastest rate possible at all costs. In the worst and very unlikely case, that could mean health consequences if someone stood by an SK for a long period of time that was not properly shielded to block the resulting emissions. But the compensation would be an accelerated adaptation of a technology that would make energy not only virtually free (or at least very low cost) but also tremendously portable and dense: all three qualities are required for the energy solution that moves humanity into a new age.
Now, of course, I must say that I really doubt that Rossi will get the funding he needs to accomplish any of the above, unless he has a change of heart and shares all of his IP with a large well-funded partner and teaches them step by step how to replicate. I think the likelihood of this happening is low due to the fiasco at Doral, but not impossible. At some point, even if Rossi never realizes that some percent of marketshare is better than zero percent of marketshare, that he is an older man who due to natural aging may not have an overabundance of years left. He may simply decide he wants his technology accepted as real to protect his legacy.
the E-Cat was demonstrated to one of the Navel Research Laboratories and everyone who observed the device seemed to be convinced.
The Navel Lab researches belly buttons. Did you mean the Naval (Navy) Research Lab?
Sorry, could not resist.
Yes indeed. No skeptic here disputes that - just we think it vanishingly unlikely it will happen.
So why did it take so long to see the light and say yes?
Oh - BTW Rossi saying he has 100s of customers is not the same as those 100s of customers existing. So we'd need to hear from them, with customers validating details of the GWs of power from Rossi. If you read my OP that is exactly what I said would convince me.
You just can't help insulting Rossi in every post, twisting the facts.
Rossi does have hundreds of pre-orders for a domestic E-Cat.
He has never said he had hundreds of orders for industrial p;ants.
Jed.
You say it is necessary to regulate the E-Cat when you are certain that it doesn't work You can't have it both ways.
It isn't like a nuclear plant?? Then what is it?
If you can't tell the difference between the two there is no point in having a discussion.
That's why they have all those pesky regulations about thermometers and power meters that you claim you & Rossi are free to ignore. Because you are engineers.
What makes you think it won't? Your faith in government design is touching.
Since no one has tested the SK, no one has the slightest idea whether it is safe or not.
It's been tested for months by Rossi and his team. Probably with his new investor looking over his shoulder and helping.
You don't need testing to get an idea that something is potentially dangerous. I asked you for an example of how it could be and as forecast you faiied to do so.
The government does not allow car makers to sell cars because they have not yet been tested yet.
That is because they are obviously dangerous. Do you need government inspection for a desk?
Most people know that. It is surprising that you do not know it,
It looks like I know it better than you. What experience have you had?
Do you seriously think products can be sold before they are safety tested?!? Or are you just playing mind games and trolling us?
They are tested alright, but by the manufacturer not the government.
your comment was largely insulting waffle. It looks like you would do anything to delay meaningful results that might show you are wrong about Rossi.
You say it is necessary to regulate the E-Cat when you are certain that it doesn't work You can't have it both ways.
Obviously I was speaking hypothetically. If it works, it must be certified. I am sure you realize that is what I meant. You are trolling again.
If you can't tell the difference between the two there is no point in having a discussion.
Okay, if it is not a nuclear reactor, where is the energy coming from? The ball is in your court. Tell us.
Whatever it is, and where ever the energy is coming from (assuming there is any excess energy, which I doubt), it will have to be certified.
It's been tested for months by Rossi and his team. Probably with his new investor looking over his shoulder and helping.
That doesn't count. You cannot sell a product that only you test. It has to be tested and certified by regulators, by UL, and by the people who inspect boilers. As I said -- and as you refuse to admit -- they will not give you a license to operate if your instruments do not show inputs and outputs. You are not allowed to violate safety regulations because "it is a trade secret" or "I am an engineer."
That is because they [cars] are obviously dangerous. Do you need government inspection for a desk?
1. Boilers are also obviously dangerous, especially megawatt scale ones. That is why there are regulations, and why every boiler has to be independently tested by organizations such as UL and by government regulators.
2. There are safety regulations pertaining to desks and other furniture, as well. See:
https://www.firesafe.org.uk/fu…ations-19881989-and-1993/
They are tested alright, but by the manufacturer not the government.
They are tested by both, plus UL. They are certified by the government and UL, not the manufacturer. No government agency has certified Rossi devices, and they cannot be installed or used until that happens.
