Posts by Warthog

"There are no regulations in Florida or anywhere else pertaining to cold nuclear fusion reactors, because most scientists do not think they exist. If there were a 1-MW nuclear fusion reactor, the authorities would have no regulations governing it, but that does not mean they would allow it to operate. If they found out about it, I am sure they would close it down, and probably cordon off the neighborhood with dozens of police cars."

It doesn't matter whether ithe device is nuclear, zero point energy, or millions of Maxwell's Demons dancing on a stage...the important meme here is "experimental". Prototype devices being tested for industrial applications are simply not regulated to the same stringency as devices being sold commercially. They are in a different category. I know this from twenty years of experience working with such systems. Admittedly, my experience is largely in Louisiana and Texas, both of which have far more industry of this sort than Florida, but I would think that would mean that such regulations would be more comprehensive rather than less. Instead of repeatedly regurgitating the same silly comments, just point me to the section of Florida's regulations that apply.

Quote from JedRothwell

Otherwise known as a "boiler." A nuclear fusion powered boiler is still a boiler. However, I am sure there are no regulations covering nuclear fusion reactors, so -- as I said -- if anyone in the government of Florida seriously believes this is a fusion reactor I am sure they will close it down immediately.

I seriously doubt that any nuclear plant is legally regulated as a "boiler" (not PWR's, of course). The E-cat, legally, is an experimental prototype that happens to output steam. Just show me the section in the Florida state regs that apply, as I am not finding one.

"I think the point that Padam73 is making is that if the claims were true, this would not be a purely "research" boiler."

You keep trying to shoehorn this pilot system into the category "boiler", which it is not. It is an experimental energy production device that happens to deliver steam.
It is absolutely commonplace in the chemical industry for a pilot plant to sell its output. It all depends on what the customers will agree to. Which is governed by a negotiated contract....exactly as was done in this case.

"Do research prototypes sell heat for $1k a day to a consumer that runs a production line that produces products? "

If heat is the product, yes. I am less familiar with energy sales, as the products of the production plants within which I was doing R&D were chemicals. Some sold, some given away. It depends on the maturity of the pilot plant and the product mix produced, and what downstream uses the plant output was going to.

"Why should I do your homework for you? Are you seriously suggesting that factory equipment is not regulated and inspected? This is not 1870."

Perhaps because I "have" looked at your Florida regs and am not finding what you say is there? What you need to grasp in this discussion is that research prototypes (including test pilot plants) are NOT considered "factory equipment". They may be in a factory environment, and they may perform operations similar to commercial factory equipment, but they are a different category completely and, in my experience, are regulated differently.

Some of their commercially available components may well be "regulated and inspected"by outside parties, either before leaving the factory or on site. But there is no regulatory agency capable of "regulating and inspecting" the whole pilot plant system, because most of the time, it is the first ever of its type, and no regulations have yet been written.

"Tons of agencies do, I am sure. "

Translation...."I don't know". You are making assumptions. My twenty years experience says you are wrong. Yes....individual devices sold commercially and installed will have been inspected and certified, but that typically happens before it leaves the manufacturers site. There probably was an electrical inspection, and a visit from the fire marshal or his rep, but these would be done before plant startup. And the electrical inspection will only look at the wiring/boxes, etc. and whether or not they are "up to code".

Industrial R&D is done differently. And until you can come up with a concrete regulation, I have to go with what I SAW to be the case while actually DOING industrial R&D.

Whether you like it or not, there is a large degree of "self-certification" in R&D. I have participated in MANY safety reviews for pilot operations, and they are far more thorough than anything a bureaucrat is likely to do.

"Mary"......I would appreciate it if you would cease to post to me. I have no interest in interaction of any sort with you.

"Yes, I know. Florida has different regs for them, as I noted. But there are regs for everyone. No one gets to operate heavy equipment without inspections and oversight. Not in the first world, in the 21st century. "

Please point out specifics as to exactly what covers industrial R&D in your postings, because I apparently missed seeing them. The point about industrial R&D is that there is no one better qualified to certify the plant than the ones that designed it in the first place. There ARE no other qualified experts to do the certification. Commercial equipment used in the system may indeed be inspected and certified, but the overall plant......no. Who certifies the tokamak prototype?? Who certifies the CERN accelerator?? So yes, some VERY "heavy equipment gets built and operated "without inspections and oversight".

What I am talking about is INDUSTRIAL R&D, not university labs. Those are two totally different situations/systems, and different rule sets apply. University R&D labs are inhabited by ignorant and inexperienced grad students (I know, 'cause I was one of them for a few years). Industrial R&D labs are run and manned by professionals with many years experience per man/topic. The area of classification that applies to the Rossi/IH system is "industrial R&D". I can only tell you what I directly observed by working for 20+ years in an Industrial R&D environment. Things there don't work like you apparently think they do.

Note that Rossi's entire career has been largely spent in the industrial R&D milieu, first in his own process, and then R&D projects done for others.

"If you have been in factories you will have seen state inspection certificates next to all types of heavy machinery, and boilers, vehicles, fork lifts, elevators, etc. No one in the first world is allowed to run a factory without safety inspections, thank goodness."

This is true for things that are sold for routine commercial use....NOT research and development site and equipment. I worked in R&D for one of the world's largest chemical firms for 20+ years (and was in and out of the "factories" (we called'em "plants") on a daily basis). No R&D would have ever happened if the level of inspection you think necessary actually had been. Pilot plants were built and operated, both inside the R&D facility and sometimes inside the producing factories/plants. For those areas and devices, the company was "self-insured", and the workers understood that extra precautions in operation were required because the special equipment was not "safety inspected and certified" by any external authority. Note though that all the fork lifts and other equipment used on the plant site "were" inspected and certified because they were .

To give you a "for instance" that "might" apply to the IH/Rossi/customer situation. "If" the customer's reactor (an R&D device, even though based on a commercial process) took in energy only as steam, their site would have needed a commercial boiler to provide the steam during times of "E-cat down" operation. That boiler would have been subject to all the inspections and certifications you suggest. "If" the reactor was designed to accept heat from electrical heat in addition to steam, such heaters would have been built into the R&D device, and NOT subject to those things. And of course, the E-cat itself is (or are), at this stage, R&D devices NOT so certified (as Rossi properly points out over and over).

Don't get me wrong....I am all in favor of safety (in those R&D situations, it was still my ass on the line, so you can bet I took all the extra precautions, and participated in all the safety design reviews that went on before any of those gizmos cranked up. And despite all of that, one incident came close to "getting me".)

Things are not quite as "cut and dried" as you think....there "are" legal exceptions.

At most of the industrial sites I have visited or worked in, access is either limited at the main gate to the overall site, or at the front door of the business location, or both, which is before any conference room....so I think using the conference room would not be a problem.

"(1) The only boilers required to be inspected under the provisions of ss. 554.1011-554.115 are boilers located in public assembly locations."

This seems to be the key phrase that exempts the IH/Rossi installation. "Public Assembly Locations" occurs throughout the whole document as being the only places where the law applies.

This is expanded deeper in the document:

"....used in the definition of “public assembly locations” in Section 554.1021(2), F.S., means a building, facility, occupancy, or portion thereof, or an area open to the public for educational purposes or for trade or commerce including, but not limited to, public and private schools, universities, child care centers, city, county and
state government buildings, commerce facilities, shopping malls, departmental stores, grocery stores, motels, hotels, resorts, vacation clubs, fitness centers, and restaurants; meeting rooms, game rooms, and similar places where the public is invited or permitted to gather, as well as boiler rooms, located in apartment complexes, condominiums, cooperatives, or similar multi-family dwellings; dry cleaners, laundries or laundromats; retirement homes; religious schools; bus or train stations; colleges and other institutions of higher learning; fraternal organizations; any club open to guests and the public; and any building or area in which persons may assemble for civic, educational, religious, recreational, entertainment or other purposes, or in which passengers may await public transportation. The term “public assembly locations” also means “places of public assembly” as used in this rule chapter."

An industrial site or sites as I am familiar with them are emphatically NOT "public assembly locations". Indeed, access is strictly limited and NOT "public".

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.

<i>"If all you have at the moment is a good fuel recipe and a triggering method, then others can use this to make many variations of your idea."</i><p>

You've got it exactly backwards. These are the kind of specifics that ARE fundamentally patentable. In the chemical business and elsewhere, this is called a "composition of matter" patent (for the fuel recipe). The problem with this sort of patent is the possibility/probability of others finding similar compositions that also work. Likewise with the reliable triggering method. Writing a patent with sufficiently widely applicable is what patent attorneys and agents earn their money doing.