[Vo]: Rossi's answer to IH

Rossi's lawyers have now entered answers to IH's claims. See the link from Sifferkoll here: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/rossi-mtd-on-counterfud-reveals-the-stupidity-of-darden-vauhn-and-their-jones-day-lawyer-drones/ I haven't had time to read it yet. I will be sorry if I have

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

True. That is why I think the pipe was full, not half full. Your trust in Murray is touching. AA On 9/2/2016 9:51 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: The flow meter would be on the output pipe from the reservoir (near

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Peter Gluck wrote: Jed, you also do not understand the function of the reservoir. > I do understand it. It eliminates the need for a constant flow of tapwater. The reservoir holds a large volume of water. Rather dirty water, as it happens. The temperature of the water in

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Yes it would be ludicrous to place the flow meter on the return line from the third party's equipment rather than measuring the flow directly going into the reactors. AA On 9/2/2016 10:18 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote:

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Why do you say the pressure was higher than 0.0 bar when that is what is reported? At 102.8C it would be dry steam. AA On 9/2/2016 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Peter Gluck > wrote: From the reservoir a pump sends water to the

Re: [Vo]: Rossi's answer to IH

What Rossi's lawyers PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & A RIGHT, P.L point out is that Darden & IH agreed to the instrumentation used by Penon but now claim it was insufficient and fatally flawed. The lawyers point out it is no good making generic statements like that without providing proof.

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

a.ashfield wrote: > The flow meter would be on the output pipe from the reservoir (near the > bottom of it), either before or after the pump feeding the reactors. > If it were there, the pipe would be full, so it cannot be there. > It is ludicrous to suggest it would

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

a.ashfield wrote: True. That is why I think the pipe was full, not half full. Your trust in > Murray is touching. > Do you seriously believe that I.H. would jeopardize this case and risk losing $267 million by lying about this? You think they are crazy? Do you think

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Jed, you also do not understand the function of the reservoir. peter On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:27 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Yes it would be ludicrous to place the flow meter on the return line from > the third party's equipment rather than measuring the flow directly going

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

a.ashfield wrote: Why do you say the pressure was higher than 0.0 bar when that is what is > reported? > Because you could not get this volume of steam or water to flow through the heat exchanger if the pressure were 0.0 barG (1 atm). The pumps have to push the water (or

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

>From the reservoir a pump sends water to the generators where it is converted in steam and goes to the customer. I hve explained you why and how the heat is measured. Do you cannot understand this? You have a certainty of that half(?) empty pipe snd you rehect elementary logic. You manifest a

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

As to what I think of IH see the new thread about Rossi's answer to IH's response. As I've said several times, a piping drawing would clear up the matter but this is still secret. AA On 9/2/2016 10:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield >

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Peter Gluck wrote: >From the reservoir a pump sends water to the generators where it is > converted in steam and goes to the customer. > Yes, but it is a closed loop. All of the water is condensed and returned. The reservoir water level does not change much from day to

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

On 09/02/2016 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Also, because an earlier version of the report supposedly had higher numbers, which were replaced with 0.0 bar in the later version. Thanks for that nugget. It made the time spent following this whole thread worthwhile. :-) (When people do

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

a.ashfield wrote: > The flow meter would be on the output pipe from the reservoir (near the > bottom of it), either before or after the pump feeding the reactors. > It is ludicrous to suggest it would be on the condensate return pipe from > the customer. > Actually,

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

I guess the main purpose of recirculating the water is not to save its cost but to reduced the dissolved salts that would fur up the reactors over time. AA On 9/2/2016 11:00 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Peter Gluck > wrote: Jed, you also do

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Water is deposited there , a part of it goes to the pump, then the flowmeter to the ECats. The pipe used for this full with water, the flowmeter was working properly. The half full legend was created by Murray- if not can you ask a photo of the plant and of the open flowmeter he says he has seen

[Vo]:in LENR now, ignoring technology is suicide

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-02-2016-in-lenr-now-ignoring.html however the subject is extended and essential... peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Final Report

See: Mosier-Boss, P.A., L. Forsley, and P. McDaniel, *Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Final Report*. 2016, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Final Report

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Jed, what is this? I can't quite figure it out. Is this a review of old > work, or is some of the work in it new? > Look at the very last page. This is a old document, but it was only recently approved for distribution to the public. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:in LENR now, ignoring technology is suicide

The problem is, LENR technology does not exist. LENR is still only a laboratory experiment. So there is nothing to ignore. Rossi's claims are fiction. It is possible Brillouin Energy might have some technology. I cannot judge. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Final Report

Jed, what is this? I can't quite figure it out. Is this a review of old work, or is some of the work in it new? The most recent date I could find in the paper is 2012, on references in the bibliography which were most likely describing work done in 2011 (or earlier). The text appeared to

Re: [Vo]:in LENR now, ignoring technology is suicide

I think I will print that out and frame it AA On 9/2/2016 3:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The problem is, LENR technology does not exist. LENR is still only a laboratory experiment. So there is nothing to ignore. Rossi's claims are fiction. It is possible Brillouin Energy might have some

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Peter Gluck wrote: > You have not answered some of my questions but can do it now, e.g. to whom > except you have complained IH re the plant in 2015? you can answer in > private. > I will tell you nothing that has not been revealed by Rossi or by I.H. Ask as many times

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

a.ashfield wrote: If the steam is condensed it would form a vacuum. DN40 sounds small to > me. Is that another Murray quote? > Yes, I said it was from Murray. Your knee jerk rejection of this is irrational. You can easily confirm the size of the pipe by looking up the

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

If the steam is condensed it would form a vacuum. DN40 sounds small to me. Is that another Murray quote? AA On 9/2/2016 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: Why do you say the pressure was higher than 0.0 bar when

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

From memory the flowmeter was DN80, but that was just hearsay. A dimensioned drwg of the pipework is what's required. What no comment on Rossi's reply to IH's motion to dismiss? ( Re: [Vo]: Rossi's answer to IH) AA On 9/2/2016 8:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: And obvious point ... if the water in the reservoir was seriously > dirty, as you mentioned in an earlier note, then it wasn't pure water, > which in turn implies it very probably had a higher boiling point than

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy. Retrograde performance: maybe the Coyote rules?

Jed, The flow meter would be on the output pipe from the reservoir (near the bottom of it), either before or after the pump feeding the reactors. It is ludicrous to suggest it would be on the condensate return pipe from the customer. If IH have supplied a piping drawing it is not in the