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.
They don’t make them like Sergio and Sven
any more.Both good men.
Display MoreAs 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.
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.
On exactly what EVIDENCE do you base all of these astounding conclusions about the safety of the widget? Do you know what allegedly powers it? Do you know how it works? Do you have any fucking actual evidence other than RossiSays. And if so, what is it.
As to the regulators, given your vast experience, which you remind us of constantly, please tell me -- is it your experience that the regulators are required to show that something brand new and revolutionary may be unsafe or do the promoters of such new and unproven and untested and unregulated technology usually have the burden to show it is safe? In your vast experience, who is responsible for persuading the certification/licensure agencies? And if the regulators don't have a clue, are they in practice of just saying, well go ahead, we trust you?
I have asked you both these questions previously, asked you to draw on your vast experience, and so far all you do is complain about babblers. This are real world, practical questions. The fact that you seem to deliberately avoid answering them speaks volumes itself.
You claim to have been responsible for many complete plants. If true, I thank dog that you must have had competent assistants. And such assistants have my complete empathy, for you come across, at least here, as a bloviating pompous, too full of himself to ever be, or admit being, wrong and a consummate poseur.
Alan/any other moderator: Please feel free to edit or delete if you believe my comments are not supported by the evidence.
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.
They have every right to say a whole lot more than diddly squat. That is why they are "the powers that be."
However, IIRC, Houston, Texas has almost no zoning laws, so let Rossi start up his widget there.
The more I read of AA and Sam, and the Director, the more I am persuaded that those following Rossi are members of a cult or a religion, in either case one that does not allow for doubt or questions, but mere total obedience to the faith. If you disagree with a Rossi follower, ask real life, practical questions, point out flaws, minor or great in their reasoning, point to Rossi's history of lying and fraud, etc., the response essentially always boils down to RossiSays and we have faith in Rossi. If someone points out a flaw, then it is fake news / babbling. If someone points out a real world problem with the stated Rossi position, then it is anonymous fake news. It just goes on and on.
As a Jew, I believe that there may have been weather or geographic explanations for Moses parting the Red Sea, but at the end of the day, I take that on faith, my faith as a Jew. But I also realize that I am taking it on faith and I am willing to listen to and acknowledge that my faith might be wrong as to the parting of the Red Sea. And if I am proven wrong about that it is not going to weaken my faith as a Jew. Because I believe in the Jewish faith.
But for the cult of Rossi, there can never be any doubts expressed, for to allow any doubt is to doubt the word of Rossi. And doubting the word of Rossi in any detail calls into doubt everything that Rossi has said or done. If you acknowledge that Rossi lied about the fake Doral customer (one of many many lies re: Doral), then you have to acknowledge that Rossi is capable of knowingly lying in order to deceive people about the success of his product, in that instance the e-cat. Once you acknowledge the existence, even the possibility, of the first lie, then you always have to consider the possibility of more lies. And that is not something that is allowed in the Church of Rossi. There can be NO doubt ever. No matter what Rossi does and says, he cannot be doubted. Not even if he changes directions, drops products, etc. After all, we have always been at war with Oceania.
QuoteI am persuaded that those following Rossi are members of a cult or a religion, in either case one that does not allow for doubt or questions, but mere total obedience to the faith. If you disagree with a Rossi follower, ask real life, practical questions, point out flaws, minor or great in their reasoning, point to Rossi's history of lying and fraud, etc., the response essentially always boils down to RossiSays and we have faith in Rossi. If someone points out a flaw, then it is fake news / babbling. If someone points out a real world problem with the stated Rossi position, then it is anonymous fake news. It just goes on and on.
WW I agree, not only a cult or a religion but a clan.
What started me following this LENR forum was my experience working with a close friend who has a business selling and servicing industrial boiler room equipment. His main work is servicing the numerous safety controls on boilers.
My state operates the boiler safety division under the Labor Department. Elevator certificates, boiler licenses and numerous other inspections and licenses fall under Labor Department control.
Any industrial scale piece of new steam generating equipment couldn't be used without extensive regulatory documentation.
A workaround in my mind would be a LENR device that replaced the heating element in an existing approved pressure vessel.
If I was designing my LENR device I would want something I could screw into my residential hot water heater to replace the resistor heating element.
Something that could replace a 2000 watt element and only use 250 watts would be a game changer. No robotic factories needed unless used to make the replacement elements.
Both good men? But this is not the issue, the problem is that they were like puppets in the Rossi's hands.
Display MoreWhat started me following this LENR forum was my experience working with a close friend who has a business selling and servicing industrial boiler room equipment. His main work is servicing the numerous safety controls on boilers.
My state operates the boiler safety division under the Labor Department. Elevator certificates, boiler licenses and numerous other inspections and licenses fall under Labor Department control.
Any industrial scale piece of new steam generating equipment couldn't be used without extensive regulatory documentation.
A workaround in my mind would be a LENR device that replaced the heating element in an existing approved pressure vessel.
If I was designing my LENR device I would want something I could screw into my residential hot water heater to replace the resistor heating element.
Something that could replace a 2000 watt element and only use 250 watts would be a game changer. No robotic factories needed unless used to make the replacement elements.
That is what probably everybody who has a sense of engineering would expect and design if there was a little LENR reactor that really does what it claimed to do.
But Rossi instead tries to reengineer large gas turbines or put a huge sealed container in your back yard, that delivers many MW steam the hell knows out of what via an extensive piping/cooling/water supply system. And it seems all without independent testing or certification by a notified lab or agency....
Alan/any other moderator: Please feel free to edit or delete if you believe my comments are not supported by the evidence.
We NEVER edit comments, and have deleted very very few, a miniscule fraction of the number of posts ever made here. in fact deletions have been confined to posts containing doxxing or discriminatory lies mixed with unproveable accusations. Sometimes comments are left intact and in place to preserve the continuity of a discussion but green-inked, more often thy are just moved into 'clearance'.
So why did it take so long to see the light and say yes?
Adrian - I refer you to my previous post for why YES to your question as originally posed is not a wise answer.
Something about IH and the pretend customer? Remember?
Rossi is good at twisting facts and getting good PR from snippets of info out of context (superlative examples emerge from the IH court case Discovery).
THH
AA: “Can you provide a single realistic danger from the SK from what we know about it?”
Based upon what we actually know about the SK, there is absolutely nothing we can say at all (Including whether there even is such a thing.)
The more I read of AA and Sam, and the Director, the more I am persuaded that those following Rossi are members of a cult or a religion, in either case one that does not allow for doubt or questions, but mere total obedience to the faith. If you disagree with a Rossi follower, ask real life, practical questions, point out flaws, minor or great in their reasoning, point to Rossi's history of lying and fraud, etc., the response essentially always boils down to RossiSays and we have faith in Rossi. If someone points out a flaw, then it is fake news / babbling. If someone points out a real world problem with the stated Rossi position, then it is anonymous fake news. It just goes on and on.
As a Jew, I believe that there may have been weather or geographic explanations for Moses parting the Red Sea, but at the end of the day, I take that on faith, my faith as a Jew. But I also realize that I am taking it on faith and I am willing to listen to and acknowledge that my faith might be wrong as to the parting of the Red Sea. And if I am proven wrong about that it is not going to weaken my faith as a Jew. Because I believe in the Jewish faith.
But for the cult of Rossi, there can never be any doubts expressed, for to allow any doubt is to doubt the word of Rossi. And doubting the word of Rossi in any detail calls into doubt everything that Rossi has said or done. If you acknowledge that Rossi lied about the fake Doral customer (one of many many lies re: Doral), then you have to acknowledge that Rossi is capable of knowingly lying in order to deceive people about the success of his product, in that instance the e-cat. Once you acknowledge the existence, even the possibility, of the first lie, then you always have to consider the possibility of more lies. And that is not something that is allowed in the Church of Rossi. There can be NO doubt ever. No matter what Rossi does and says, he cannot be doubted. Not even if he changes directions, drops products, etc. After all, we have always been at war with Oceania.
The different view points about Rossi and his technology is what makes this thread interesting.
Both good men? But this is not the issue, the problem is that they were like puppets in the Rossi's hands.
Rossi might have felt like the puppet working with these highly educated and
experienced men.
Absolutely not, Rossi was/is the only puppeteer.
Rossi admitted only old academics infatuated of their own dreams and available to never perform any really independent tests on his stuff.
Rossi might have felt like the puppet working with these highly educated and
experienced men.
Sam - I think you will reconsider that if you read the excellent long article Marci wrote on Rossi in Infinity magazine (or something like). He came across as charismatic and someone who liked to do his own thing, as indeed many of the stories of people interacting with him show.
Not a puppet.
My state operates the boiler safety division under the Labor Department. Elevator certificates, boiler licenses and numerous other inspections and licenses fall under Labor Department control.
Yes. All states have such arrangements, as do all first world countries. All large boilers are regulated and inspected.
Any industrial scale piece of new steam generating equipment couldn't be used without extensive regulatory documentation.
That would include any LENR device.
A workaround in my mind would be a LENR device that replaced the heating element in an existing approved pressure vessel.
This would not be a work-around. Regulations would have to be drafted to cover the new LENR heating element. Look at the inspection procedures now in place. They include inspections of the combustion or electric heating element inside the boiler. There would have to be similar procedures for the LENR gadget. Inspections do not only cover the pressure vessel.
Something that could replace a 2000 watt element and only use 250 watts would be a game changer. No robotic factories needed unless used to make the replacement elements.
Robotic factories will be needed no matter what the application, no matter what the scale. You cannot make large numbers of cold fusion devices without a robotic factory. There would be no point to selling a few dozen hand-made ones per year. As soon as large manufacturers found out what you are selling, they would start to make millions of them. (After regulations were put in place.)
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.
UL certification has been a long time term thrown around on this forum. Having went through multiple UL certifications personally, I would like to clarify a few issues. Hopefully some will be useful in further discussions. However, like many things here, certain people will ignore facts. It is evident that AA has not been through the many rigorous requirements that are required for industrial process and plant operation, which entails OSHA, local, state and national regulations. He may state he has, but his own words show he does not know what is required, thus he could not have obtained the necessary operating permits required.
First some points about certification.
To my knowledge, the government does no testing. They write laws that operations / equipment must be certified, spells out which certifications must be met and then the government polices or enforces those regulations.
UL is not a government agency. UL is a for profit company (since 2012). They are a registered certification company that tests products to given standards. They do not themselves develop those standards in most instances, but simply follow the testing protocols set forth by standards using their own equipment and personnel. If there is NO standard, UL does not test a product! They only test to recognized standards. This is a very important element that some are ignoring or not aware of.
They do not allow companies to use their own personnel nor testing equipment. Also UL is not a world wide agency in that many UE regulations are accepted by nor certified by UL. But then again, it is the standard to which the certifying agency uses more than the agency itself.
Both the government and UL use standards to certify to. These standards are normally developed by industry groups such as NIST, ANSI, ASTM, SAE etc. These groups normally do not do testing but write the protocols, testing methods and requirements that the product must meet. So UL, will test to ASTM standard xxxx for example.
Now, what does this all mean?
#1. The government does not certify product. It requires it to be certified, (at least in most cases) to an approved standard. The government does not automatically do this. The manufacturer must submit and acquire the cerfitications.
#2. UL does not require product to be certified, it simply conducts the certification process to a standard. A company has to PAY UL to do this testing. UL does not contact the customer and say "OK, you are now scheduled for certification". The company wanting to sell a product has to initiate the UL certification.
#3. One gets certified to a standard. If there are no existing standards for a product, then the recognized standards organization (such as ASTM, SAE, etc) must develop one. This takes a long time and is quite complex.
In the US, almost all public inhabited (meaning places with employees or public access) have strict regulations in place. These regulations could be imposed by OSHA (national) or state and local authority. They cover everything from anti-slip surfaces to, yes boiler certifications.
Now, with the above, I can positively state that Rossi, at best, is being deceptive if not out and out lying as usual, when it comes to certifications. Yet some heartily proclaim the eCat is certified or could be used in facilities where there are employees or public access. This is ridiculous.
First, I have read the so call "approved certification" Rossi published from SGS. It is a joke to say this is a "certifictation" for using the eCat. This cert was a preliminary review certification for safety of electrical control devices only (such as switches, electric enclosures, etc.) and had nothing to do with a reactor, pressure vessel, fuel source or exotic energy, much less a demonstrated working one. SGS did not even examine the equipment, but reviewed the submitted design by Rossi. The certification they issued CLEARLY stated the document was not to be used for any production nor official use. It was only a stamp that the design of the external controls met basics requirements. Yet Rossi allowed people to state that the eCat had "safety certifications" which it did not. It was only a paper design of electrical switches, enclosures, etc.
Secondly, when people state the eCat is "certified", I can state they are ignorant or misinformed, because what standard could the eCat be certified to? Nuclear? hardly, because that would takes years and millions! Those certs would have regulations about radioactive materials, uranium handling/storage, fail safes, all which the eCat does not have. A regular boiler? Possibly the pressure tank, but that is not the heat source and not the actual reactor? Could it be certified to a gas burner? No, there is no gas. How about electric? No, because the heating element is not primarily electric. There is no standard set. So UL could not certify it. (Nor SGS)
To anyone who knows squat about UL or industrial certification, it is clear that Rossi is full of BS and is clearly lying or deceptive at best. Per his own words here, AA does not know squat about what is required in the real world of industry. There ARE many regulations required for operating a 1MW heat source, none of which the eCat could meet because no standards are developed for it, an new exotic form of energy.
To give a small example, I had to process UE certification for wood decorative trim that was going into Subway stores in Europe! We had UL certification in the US for the burn tests, but this was not to the UE standards and was not acceptable. We had to send pieces of wood trim to Europe and have a registered certifying company test to UE standards for plain wood, before it could be installed in Subway sandwich shops. UL was not approved at the time to test to those standards.
If the UE required plain, natural wood trim to be tested (for fire burn time and smoke/hazardous material emission) imagine what is required for a new, exotic form of energy production that in in the 1 or 40 MW range! Some people posting here are absolutely clueless and simply are good soldiers for their idol. Yet they argue from a point of absolute arrogance. 
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.
That's not "speaking hypothetically", it is illogical , unless you changed you mind and are no longer certain.
As you can't see the obvious difference in danger levels between a nuclear fission plant and an SK LENR reactor, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
You couldn't come up with a single example of how the SK presents a potential danger.
The more I read of AA and Sam, and the Director, the more I am persuaded that those following Rossi are members of a cult or a religion, in either case one that does not allow for doubt or questions, but mere total obedience to the faith.
As I have stated several times, while I think the QX and SK reactors may work, we have to wait for more data to be sure, Your thinking is so addled and insulting, I'll add you to the babbler list.
The only reason for your post was to be a troll.
There are safety regulations pertaining to desks and other furniture, as well. See:
From your link:
"The Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988 (as amended in 1989, 1993 and 2010) set levels of fire resistance for domestic upholstered furniture, furnishings and other products containing upholstery."
Please explain how this applies to a desk.
