Posts by oldguy

    All this talk about old stuff that was over when Rossi dropped his case. == The only thing I think it is good for is for to let Rossi supporters misdirect attention away from the failed and poorly conducted condo demo - away from faulty measurements and lack of other measurements and the lack of real customers that he claimed he had from among the world's top 10 companies. Face it, his offer, if ever existed, was a failure, his demo was a failure, his suit to try to win 200M was a failure, his thermoelectric chips were failures, his waste treatment was a failure, his gold smuggling was a failure,...... What has he accomplished that actually has a positive observable result for anyone else other than taking money away from other LENR researchers for his own pockets.

    I am confussed by these claims of offers posted in some obsure blog.


    Who is this "Ruby Shale" that claims an offer was made? Is that a real person, a person claiming to be Ruby, a sock puppet, a post in a Rossi controlled blog posted by a Rossi employee, who knows.


    Does this Ruby person (if real and not a misrepresentation of someone) have the right to make an offer on behalf of IH?


    What were the terms of this alleged offer?


    I am with Jed on this. Some statement by someone on a blog controlled by Rossi is not proof of an offer.


    True the statement that someone claimed there was an offer on a blog is evidence that the blog said something but there it is not proof that an offer was actually made by IH or one of its approved delegates.


    If is was otherwise, we would be seeing all kinds of "offers" in obscure blogs by posters with unproven identity ,

    .... like "General Electric has offered me $10M for using their light bulbs". ....then, If I don't get my money I will sue them.

    remember he claimed his customer was one of the top 10 larges global companies.

    spectrum- how was the spectrum calibrated? As with all of Rossi's "demos" there seems a lack of control or calibration. Could the device be "off calibration" so that 420nm was really 530nm or something like that?


    for example the use of an incorrect diffraction grating?

    OH by the way, I view the "demo from the condo" to be very very poor (laughable). A good one should use multiply redundant measures of all critical data and use separate physical methods to do so. It should also use a control working at the same level as the claimed effect and all raw data should be made available. “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE- Carl Sagan)

    covered that 6-cylinder thing in the other thread

    and you were wrong then too


    see guarantee performance in agreement:

    payment was "contingent on a six-cylinder Hot Cat"


    and all energy measures were to be on energy flow in and out of a six-cylinder unit.


    Read the agreement.


    Unless you find a written agreement (required also by contract) signed by ALL parties, then there could be no

    alterations from the agreed upon six cylinder unit.

    Rossi gave IH what IH thought was convincing evidence his devices worked - their whole business plan was based on that. They paid $10M+ to get these devices.

    ***Nope. The contract said they paid $11.5M for a year-long demo of the devices, and that an agreed-to independent third party would evaluate them and say yay or nay. If Yay, then they would buy the IP for $89M. The party said Yay, and IH did not pay. Instead, they hired someone else a few months later to dispute the 3rd party report.

    Not so. You seem to think that the 10M item and the thing in Fl were the same. Not so. The agreement for the testing (to be done within a certain time frame that was not observed) was for the 6 cylinder system not what was done in Fl.


    I am not sure, but I think that the 6 cylinder item was retained by IH. (at least during the time all those things were going on in Fl).

    anyone know what happened to Schwartz's NANOR devices


    He is hosting :

    2019 LANR/CF Colloquium at MIT

      
    Sat., March 23, and Sun. Mar. 24, 2019


    http://world.std.com/~mica/2019colloq.html

    Tentative program/speakers include:

    Peter Hagelstein

    Mitchell Swartz

    Thomas Claytor

    Mel Miles

    Jean-Paul Biberian

    George Miley (via assoc.)

    Yasuhiro Iwamura

    Hideki Yoshino

    Francesco Celani

    Fran Tanzella

    David Nagel

    Steven Katinsky

    Louis Dechiaro

    Robert Smith, Jr

    Brian Ahern

    Florian Meltzer

    Thomas Dolan


    contact here: http://world.std.com/~mica/jetenergycontact.htm


    The problem with all this is that they should have measured the steam flow out of the system not the water out of the customer's box. That would mean a steam water separator before the flow meter. It does not matter much how much water flowed out of the customer's box only how much steam (sans water) was delivered to the box. If they did that, then the water flow rate and the temps and pressures would be much less important.


    It sure makes you wonder why Rossi would strip the system of such things before setting it up for the customer. I seem to recall that he offered some water flow problems as his explanation. But they never seemed to hold water (pun intended) if there was really a steam pressure.

    Rossi's explanation for the heater strips was that his graphite or platinum sponge processes required constant heat and the strips were backup in case the ECat heating was ever interrrupted


    It is hard to imagine that someone would think that heat strips wraped around 10 feet or so of 1 to 2" steel pipe could replace 1 MEGAWATTS of heated steam. Just imagine the electrical connections needed and the heat transfer rates

    little those heater tapes

    yes the steam, I seem to recall was on the "customer's side" coming from the insulation where those little heater tapes where. I always viewed that there was a small water leak that was heated to steam by the tapes not that the Ecat was producing steam.


    Why would the customer need heating tapes if the pipes truly carried steam at 104C

    My question is: why would Rossi, et al spend the night (at least before 6:30AM before a known final inspection and disassemble the plumbing, insulation, and remove meters? The only motivation I see as reasonable is that they were trying to hide something.


    Especially true since there were known heating tape below the insulation where the steam was sometime seen.

    yes pressure rock steady at 0 absolute pressure in bars (the meter was claimed one that was absolute but the 0 could only be a gauge pressure) and that 0 held day after day even when low pressure storms went through Miami.

    And if the pressure was truly 0 how could the steam be circulated with out that vacuum pump?


    Oh yes, by contract Penon was to have the instruments recertified after the runs and he did not take the data, he just received the data from Rossi.