Posts by frankwtu

    So how dangerous can LENR be and is this why the security services are trying to subvert its development:


    Extract:
    "In 1929, Walter Hernann Nernst (1864-1941), Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1920, remarked on experiments on hydrogen
    gas interaction with uranium metal in the Zeitschrift magazine: “Hydrogen will dissolve into cretin metals as if the metal was
    acting like a dry sponge absorbing water.” If deuterium is dissolved in uranium metal beyond a critical threshold concentration, an interaction between the deuterium and uranium was expected.


    If it is a form of deuteron disintegration, it becomes an avenue of energy release from the heavy metals without the need to reach a critical mass of the fissile elements.


    Glow-ischarge experiments were conducted using Crookes-Geissler tubes filled with deuterium gas and uranium foils. These were precursors to the Farnsworth Fussier experiments attempting the electrostatic fusion of deuterium in the1960s. Niels Bohr suggested that this approach could lead to the production of small nuclear devices instead of the critical mass approach, which would be more suitable for large devices".


    http://mragheb.com/NPRE 402 ME 405 Nuclear Power Engineering/German Nuclear Program.pdf


    Best regards
    Frank

    sifferkoll


    I believe most potential investors would be careful about who OWNS the IP and has the SKILLSET before investing. IH sales pitch was that they did, which was obviously a lie (or more like we believe we will learn soon... because we know it works). This was the most important time constraint, which Rossi recently
    has acknowledged by stating the plant needed him 16h/day and West+Fabiani 8h/day to run.


    But maybe IH can replicate and replicate even better than Rossi?


    Quote from David Fojt’s interview:


    “As regarding the Rossi IH conflict, this is not my war however from everything I knew I believed that actually IH has replicated Rossi with great success, even with more reliability than Rossi himself”.


    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.co.uk/


    Does Rossi have proof of this do you think? Is this the sort of 'fact' that might be introduced at the 'mediation' if indeed it is a 'fact'?


    Best regards
    Frank

    Alan


    Very interesting read. This I found particularly thought provoking:


    "As regarding the Rossi IH conflict, this is not my war however from everything I knew I believed that actually IH has replicated Rossi with great success, even with more reliability than Rossi himself".


    Do you David have anything further to add to that? Understanding David's relationship with 'facts' and 'verifiable evidence' I find this statement most fascinating.


    Keep up the good work David and all the best with the "Concept of Third Force" I wish you success with that.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Alan F


    ORDER Scheduling Mediation before Thomas E. Scott. Mediation Hearing set for 1/12/2017 10:00 AM. The parties are reminded that a report of the mediation is due within seven (7) days after the mediation conference. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 7/26/2016. (wc)


    Rossi has time to write a 'user guide and instruction manual' by then. If he cant or the manual doesn't work then IH may have the upper hand. I can see another independent 'test' coming up!!


    Best regards
    Frank

    Axil


    Taking things at face value, which I admit is a novelty on this forum, IH have tried to validate the E-cat without success. Maybe they are telling the truth. Maybe Rossi can make it work for the purposes of validation by Penon, but only under his expertise. This of course is of no use to IH as they are unable to manufacture and market any E-cat's that require Rossi's constant attention.


    So, the only way for Rossi now to reach a 'mediated settlement' is to develop the E-cat technology to such a standard that it can be made to work out of the box by reference to an instruction book. (Well not quite, a certified operator is Rossi's terminology)


    I think this is the 'gauntlet' that IH have thrown down to Rossi and it looks like Rossi may have 'picked it up!


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…-developing-e-cat-plants/


    Best regards
    Frank

    Bang99


    What do I see in this? Well I see the potential for a mediated solution to the Rossi v Darden case.


    The difficulty and the improvement are
    generated from the necessity to make a subject that does not need Andrea
    Rossi inside 16- 18 hours per day, and the engineer and the technician
    of IH for 8 hours per day.


    See how Rossi specifically links both his own and IH's expertise as necessary ingredients for success in the current state of development but holds out an olive branch whereby potentially IH will be able to 'successfully validate' the invention and thereby perhaps, release the $89 million when the effect can be replicated by 'third parties' outside a 'Rossi and IH sphere of influence and participation. Very interesting if this is what it means, But who knows, the potential for red herrings I'm afraid is very high.


    But on the other hand if this becomes the status quo (E-cat's made to work from an instruction book) then everyone will be happy and the world will be saved!


    Hmmmmm!!


    Best regards
    Frank

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    I am getting sooooo tempted to start feeding FUD to Sifferkoll here. Like, "Where's my check?"


    Would that be the sort of check you might expect from the moderators?? Oh it's coming don't worry.


    Jed


    We do know. It is common sense.


    Is that how you calibrate the truth and fact as an exact measurement of observable and verifiable information? [email protected] COMMON SENSE, Rossi and Penon are light years ahead of you in that department then.


    Yet another example of inappropriate measurement of COP (Coefficient of Plausibility).

    Best regards
    Frank

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Look the onus is in the owner of the boiler. If Rossi decided it was not a boiler then the responsibility lay on his shoulders until an inspection by the authorities proved otherwise or it exploded causing danger.


    If Rossi called the Fire Chief and as a result of that call they both decided it was not a boiler then there may not be records. Imagine someone calling the Fire Chief and saying "I have a washing machine and my neighbour says I need to register it as a boiler, what shall I do?" The Fire Chief would not waste his time writing to him.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Jed


    My safety law background was spent predominantly in the fire service, later travelling the world visiting fire departments and yes the Fire Chief in Orlando on 6th June 2007 .


    The Fire Chief will have 'discretion' in the application of law and will make his decision on a technical appraisal and risk analysis. Even if technically, the device appears to be a 'boiler' he/she will have the last say. So until that has happened (and it may well have occurred) none of us know for sure what the designation of the E-cat is.


    Rossi may have made a phone call to the Fire Chief who could have decided not to pursue registration, we may never know.


    Best regards
    Frank

    AlainCo


    I agree, the lack of clear test for this and many other LENR related developments is tending towards a credibility gap. But a test to determine whether the reactor is a 'boiler' or not is only of interest to those who would like to see Rossi prosecuted for not following Florida Boiler Laws.


    Many of us are content with the concept of LENR being a real scientifically proven 'phenomena' but have difficulty with some of the 'science' 'theory' and 'individual claims' (Rossi's being an example). This against the background of 'Pons and Fleishmann' and the funding conflict with 'Hot Fusion' and now the 'disruptive technology' label that LENR clearly represents, reinforces the mantra: 'incredible claims require incredible evidence'. It does not take a great deal of imagination to conclude this is exploited by the skeptics and whilst this can be a good thing in the discovery process, a real outcome may well be that Cold Fusion is vanquished to histories trash can. Given the science available to us at this present time, this would be unfortunate.


    Another scenario could be that Rossi, and his invention fails these many tests and that Cold Fusion (aka LENR) goes down with him, in a repeat of the Pons and Fleishmann debacle.


    Best regards
    Frank

    AlainCo


    You may be right. But the status quo is there is no formal challenge to this. Where there is a formal challenge it will take the form of a complaint to the Fire Chief who has responsibility for enforcing this legislation. He will then inspect the plant and make a decision on what action to take. Until this formal process takes place all this is conjecture and speculation and more importantly the 'status quo' applies, that is if Rossi himself has considered the application of the boiler regs and decided they do not apply then they do not apply, until, as I have said, this is formally challenged.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    From boiler definition:

    under pressure or vacuum, for use external to itself


    0.0 bar is neither pressure not vacuum, Dewey Mary and Jed (and others) claim the 'pretend customer' never 'used' the heated water or steam as there was no evidence (no heat from the vent) so on just two critical counts (1) it was not under vacuum or pressure and (2) the heated water (steam) was never 'used' external to itself.


    So now we have confirmation it was NOT a boiler.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Court Docket (25 ORDER that by July 26, 2016, the parties shall select a mediator pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, schedule a time, date, and place for mediation, and jointly file a proposed order scheduling mediation. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on 7/22/2016. (wc)


    Judge John J O'Sullivan may be well placed as 'mediator' http://fba-sdfla.org/wp-conten…sullivan-octnov14.pdf.pdf but could be another court official.


    Is this a signal that the parties do not want to go to full trial or just the next step in the court procedure?


    Best regards
    Frank

    Claim 19 seems to be critical:


    19. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said tank is configured for holding fluid to be heated, wherein said fuel wafer is configured to be in thermal communication with said fluid, wherein said resistor is configured to be coupled to a voltage source, wherein said apparatus further comprises a controller in communication with said voltage source, and a temperature sensor, wherein said fuel mixture comprises lithium, and lithium aluminum hydride, wherein said catalyst comprises a group 10 element, wherein said controller is configured to monitor a temperature from said temperature sensor, and, based at least in part on said temperature, to reinvigorate a reaction in said fuel mixture, wherein reinvigorating said reaction comprises varying a voltage of said voltage source.
    20. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel powder.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax


    Definition of a boiler:
    A boiler is defined as "a closed vessel in which water or other liquid is heated, steam or vapor is generated, steam is superheated, or any combination thereof, under pressure or vacuum, for use external to itself, by the direct application of energy from the combustion of fuels, from electricity or nuclear energy."


    “Boiler” means a closed vessel


    With an internal pressure of 0.0bar how can it be considered a 'closed vessel' and I would say its definitely not in a 'public place' its a private factory.


    Maybe he or someone read the code in Florida and decided it didn't apply, and they might have been correct, or not. There is no blatant lie there


    Game set and match I think.


    Best regards
    Frank

    Wyttenbach


    But none of You has acquired a master of law and specialized in contract right. Why will you not simply stop and wait for the next step???


    I qualified in mechanical engineering specialising in heat exchange equipment, pumps and compressors. I went on to qualify in safety law, a peripheral element of my study programme was contract law.


    But I see your point, we should wait and see.


    Best regards
    Frank