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

[a.ashfield]

As you have not heard from the Chinese that is proof positive of fraud. 
  Really?

AA

On 9/5/2016 1:13 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
This whole discussion is freakin' ridiculous.  If AR really had a 
reactor with a COP of 6.0, the Chinese would already be scrambling to 
build thousands of such reactors.


Rossi is clearly a fraud.

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

[Terry Blanton]

This whole discussion is freakin' ridiculous.  If AR really had a reactor
with a COP of 6.0, the Chinese would already be scrambling to build
thousands of such reactors.

Rossi is clearly a fraud.

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 09/03/2016 01:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:

And more important, how could the dirt /circulate?/  It wouldn't
make it past the boil/vaporize/recondense stage.


If there really was steam, the dirt could be coming from the condenser.


But it wouldn't /build up/.  The stain in the water would all be fresh 
wash-off from the condenser, picked up on that pass through it.


The condenser would have to have been literally scaling away, 
disintegrating on the inside, for that to happen if the crud didn't make 
it around the circuit along with the water -- and then the whole thing 
would have clogged up essentially instantly, as the dissolved guts of 
the condenser reappeared in the boilers.


And supposedly photos of the rig showed that the water got dirtier as 
time went by.  (At least, I think that's what they said.)





As if we needed more proof -- but the brown water seems pretty
iron-clad . . .


Literally. There was lots of rust in it.


:-)



- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> And more important, how could the dirt *circulate?*  It wouldn't make it
> past the boil/vaporize/recondense stage.
>

If there really was steam, the dirt could be coming from the condenser.



> As if we needed more proof -- but the brown water seems pretty iron-clad .
> . .
>

Literally. There was lots of rust in it.

- Jed

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Hey, speaking of dirty water, there was a really worthwhile observation 
on that thread:


"Could be anything. Rust, dirt, bacteria. If Rossi wouldn't just let 
it circulate with a mild 20 kW heating once per circle, *it'd all clog 
up in whatever part is supposed to turn that filth into steam.*"


!!! Yow !!!

You can't have dirty water running into a boiler, day in, day out, and 
dry steam coming out the other end -- it's just not gonna work for more 
than a very short period before the boiler clogs!


And more important, how could the dirt /circulate?/  It wouldn't make it 
past the boil/vaporize/recondense stage.  You've got /distilled water/ 
coming in from the condenser, so each pass through the device starts 
with squeaky clean water, so /how could it get dirtier over time?/  The 
water going round and round, getting redistilled over and over, should 
be pure enough to drink!


Yet the photos seem to show just that -- crud built up in the system.  
Therefore, /the water was not being boiled off -- it was traversing the 
loop as liquid/.


As if we needed more proof -- but the brown water seems pretty 
iron-clad, even if there were no other evidence that the system didn't work.



On 09/02/2016 11:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
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 pure water.


See the images in this post on LENR Forum:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3645-Analyzing-E-Cat-Plant-Pump-Photos-Indicate-COP-1-Engineer48/?postID=33411#post33411

The images show what appears to be clear plastic tubing leading from 
the individual pumps.  The fluid going through most of the tubing is 
dark brown, but the longer tubes running behind the first ones show a 
lighter color.


Eric

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

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
You said the pipe was DN40.  There is no way one would put a DN80 
flowmeter on a pipe that small.  I assume it was mounted on a DM80 pipe 
and that was why it was as large as it was.


I depended on memory because I didn't want to take the time to look it 
up.  Without the piping drawing it is meaningless anyway.


I have translated the legalese of Rossi's response into English in the 
link I gave you so you don't have to worry about it..


AA

On 9/3/2016 9:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

From memory the flowmeter was DN80, but that was just hearsay.


Why do you depend on memory? It is right there in Exhibit 5. The 
flowmeter was an Apator PoWoGaz, model number MWN130-80-NC. That is 
not "hearsay." It is a statement filed with the court by I.H. If it is 
wrong, there will be dire consequences for I.H., possibly the loss of 
millions of dollars, so you can be sure it is right.


You seem to think you are free to redefine the word "hearsay" to mean 
whatever you want it to mean.


What no comment on Rossi's reply to IH's motion to dismiss? ( Re:
[Vo]: Rossi's answer to IH)


It was just filed! I.H. has not had time to comment. I cannot 
understand the legal gobbledygook in that statement so I have no comment.


- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

Jed, I wanted specifically information about people to whom (as you say) IH
has complained in 2015 about the 1MW plant.
What has Rossi do with this. The strange thing is that NOBODY has confirmed
what you say, e.g. on forums where LENRists write.
You use the oppressors logic "I say you must believe" and a lot of your
statements are indistinguishable from lies.
I will not ask IH because they have not told anything in 2015.

peter

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 as you like, my answer is no.
>
> If you want additional information I suggest you ask Rossi. Given your
> attitude I doubt that I.H. will tell you anything.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[a.ashfield]

As the water is continuously distilled I see no reason why it should be 
"seriously dirty."


AA



On 9/2/2016 11:56 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
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 pure water.


See the images in this post on LENR Forum:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3645-Analyzing-E-Cat-Plant-Pump-Photos-Indicate-COP-1-Engineer48/?postID=33411#post33411

The images show what appears to be clear plastic tubing leading from 
the individual pumps.  The fluid going through most of the tubing is 
dark brown, but the longer tubes running behind the first ones show a 
lighter color.


Eric

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

>From memory the flowmeter was DN80, but that was just hearsay.
>

Why do you depend on memory? It is right there in Exhibit 5. The flowmeter
was an Apator PoWoGaz, model number MWN130-80-NC. That is not "hearsay." It
is a statement filed with the court by I.H. If it is wrong, there will be
dire consequences for I.H., possibly the loss of millions of dollars, so
you can be sure it is right.

You seem to think you are free to redefine the word "hearsay" to mean
whatever you want it to mean.



> What no comment on Rossi's reply to IH's motion to dismiss? ( Re: [Vo]:
> Rossi's answer to IH)
>

It was just filed! I.H. has not had time to comment. I cannot understand
the legal gobbledygook in that statement so I have no comment.

- Jed

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

[Eric Walker]

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 pure
> water.
>

See the images in this post on LENR Forum:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3645-Analyzing-E-Cat-Plant-Pump-Photos-Indicate-COP-1-Engineer48/?postID=33411#post33411

The images show what appears to be clear plastic tubing leading from the
individual pumps.  The fluid going through most of the tubing is dark
brown, but the longer tubes running behind the first ones show a lighter
color.

Eric

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

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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 flowmeter specifications. You 
could also think about it for a moment. Ask yourself:


How difficult is it for Murray to measure a pipe?

Murray sent this comment to Penon and Rossi. They did not respond to 
this or to any of his other comments, which was a violation of their 
contract. They did not respond to the damning facts he brought out, 
such as the impossible pressure numbers because they have no answers. 
Because they are guilty of blatant fraud. But in addition to the 
damning information he cites, suppose he had made a simple error of 
fact, such as listing the wrong pipe size. Why wouldn't they correct that?


- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 flowmeter specifications. You could also
think about it for a moment. Ask yourself:

How difficult is it for Murray to measure a pipe?

Murray sent this comment to Penon and Rossi. They did not respond to this
or to any of his other comments, which was a violation of their contract.
They did not respond to the damning facts he brought out, such as the
impossible pressure numbers because they have no answers. Because they are
guilty of blatant fraud. But in addition to the damning information he
cites, suppose he had made a simple error of fact, such as listing the
wrong pipe size. Why wouldn't they correct that?

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 as you like, my answer is no.

If you want additional information I suggest you ask Rossi. Given your
attitude I doubt that I.H. will tell you anything.

- Jed

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

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 that sort of thing in my 
business they can find themselves in jail -- but then our biggest 
customer is the government and they play hardball with fraud.)


And BTW if it's supposed to be barG, then quite aside from the issue of 
how the steam is forced through the pipe with zero applied pressure, we 
also have the problem of an unknown boiling point for pure water at the 
site, since we don't know the atmospheric pressure.


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 
pure water.


This all makes it very hard to assess the steam quality.

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

[a.ashfield]

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 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 steam) and this raises the pressure 
above 1 atm. Murray explained this in Exhibit 5:


The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0
kPaG and the piping is DN40.

For steam to flow, a pressure differential is required to overcome
the losses in the pipe. Given the foregoing, this would require
that the pressure on the JMP side of the building was
significantly below atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would
flow at extraordinary velocity. But this was obviously not the
situation present at the location.


I and others noted this fact before reading this Exhibit.

(Let us assume this is meant to be 0.0 barG, and the 0.0 bar in 
Rossi's data is a misprint.)


Also, because an earlier version of the report supposedly had higher 
numbers, which were replaced with 0.0 bar in the later version. I saw 
only the later version.


- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

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 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 the reservoir is around 60°C. 
Water is pumped from the reservoir through the reactors, and from 
there through the customer site heat exchanger. It then flows back 
into the reservoir. The water level in the reservoir does not change 
much from day to day, so all of the water is returned. It is a closed 
loop.


If they did not have a reservoir, they would have to use a flow 
tapwater I suppose. How else could they do it? Using tapwater would be 
expensive.


Eyewitnesses told me this is how it works. Has Rossi or someone else 
told you something else? Is there some other purpose for the 
reservoir, other than reducing the need for tapwater?


- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

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 it, with rust stains? Except you who swallows this hal full
tale?
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.
Or the ERV report- we have the average for 10 months- but what was the
maximum and the minimum hourly flow value for water?
Actually, do you have the diagram of the plant? Were there filters/sieves
in the circuit and where? Was it a steam trap? What has happened with the
stories of Rossi tearing out the steam trap and taking the flowmeter home?
peter


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 the reservoir is around 60°C.
> Water is pumped from the reservoir through the reactors, and from there
> through the customer site heat exchanger. It then flows back into the
> reservoir. The water level in the reservoir does not change much from day
> to day, so all of the water is returned. It is a closed loop.
>
> If they did not have a reservoir, they would have to use a flow tapwater I
> suppose. How else could they do it? Using tapwater would be expensive.
>
> Eyewitnesses told me this is how it works. Has Rossi or someone else told
> you something else? Is there some other purpose for the reservoir, other
> than reducing the need for tapwater?
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 steam) and this raises the pressure above 1 atm. Murray
explained this in Exhibit 5:

The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and
the piping is DN40.

For steam to flow, a pressure differential is required to overcome the
losses in the pipe. Given the foregoing, this would require that the
pressure on the JMP side of the building was significantly below
atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would flow at extraordinary
velocity. But this was obviously not the situation present at the location.


I and others noted this fact before reading this Exhibit.

(Let us assume this is meant to be 0.0 barG, and the 0.0 bar in Rossi's
data is a misprint.)

Also, because an earlier version of the report supposedly had higher
numbers, which were replaced with 0.0 bar in the later version. I saw only
the later version.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 the reservoir is around 60°C.
Water is pumped from the reservoir through the reactors, and from there
through the customer site heat exchanger. It then flows back into the
reservoir. The water level in the reservoir does not change much from day
to day, so all of the water is returned. It is a closed loop.

If they did not have a reservoir, they would have to use a flow tapwater I
suppose. How else could they do it? Using tapwater would be expensive.

Eyewitnesses told me this is how it works. Has Rossi or someone else told
you something else? Is there some other purpose for the reservoir, other
than reducing the need for tapwater?

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

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 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 
day, except because of evaporation.


So you can measure the entire flow volume at any point in the loop.


(Actually it is probably not steam. The pressure is higher than 0.0 
bar, and it probably liquid water.)


I hve explained you why and how the heat is measured.


If you have explained this, please tell us what instrument Rossi used 
to measure the steam quality. A flow meter cannot do this.



Do you cannot understand this?
You have a certainty of that half(?) empty pipe snd you rehect
elementary logic.


Elementary logic says that when you find rust stains halfway up a 
pipe, with the top end of the pipe clean, that means the water level 
was halfway up the pipe and the pipe was half empty.


You manifest a Teflon brain syndrome in this problem, why should I
continue to discuss with you? Really?


You have never discussed this. You have never given any reason why 
there should be rust stains in only half of the pipe and flow meter 
orifice. You cannot give any reason for this other than the fact that 
it was half empty. You have also refused to tell us why the manual 
warns against running the meter with a half-empty pipe if -- as you 
claim -- such pipes do not exist. You have evaded discussing this 
proof. You have not discussed anything. Plus I am sure you have no 
idea whether Rossi checked the steam quality.


- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

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
> into the reactors.
> AA
>
>
>
> On 9/2/2016 10:18 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> 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, there would be nothing ludicrous about this at all if the
> flowmeter were placed at the bottom of a U. This would work fine. It would
> be just as good as placing the thing next to the pumps, or between the
> reservoir and pumps. The flowmeter only works with liquid water, not steam,
> so it has to be placed at one of these three locations. It will measure the
> entire volume of water at any of the three, so they would be equally okay.
>
> To measure enthalpy, you also have to also measure the steam quality, with
> some other instrument. I do not think Rossi did that.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[a.ashfield]

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:

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, there would be nothing ludicrous about this at all if the 
flowmeter were placed at the bottom of a U. This would work fine. It 
would be just as good as placing the thing next to the pumps, or 
between the reservoir and pumps. The flowmeter only works with liquid 
water, not steam, so it has to be placed at one of these three 
locations. It will measure the entire volume of water at any of the 
three, so they would be equally okay.


To measure enthalpy, you also have to also measure the steam quality, 
with some other instrument. I do not think Rossi did that.


- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 day, except
because of evaporation.

So you can measure the entire flow volume at any point in the loop.


(Actually it is probably not steam. The pressure is higher than 0.0 bar,
and it probably liquid water.)



> I hve explained you why and how the heat is measured.
>

If you have explained this, please tell us what instrument Rossi used to
measure the steam quality. A flow meter cannot do this.



> Do you cannot understand this?
> You have a certainty of that half(?) empty pipe snd you rehect elementary
> logic.
>

Elementary logic says that when you find rust stains halfway up a pipe,
with the top end of the pipe clean, that means the water level was halfway
up the pipe and the pipe was half empty.


You manifest a Teflon brain syndrome in this problem, why should I continue
> to discuss with you? Really?
>

You have never discussed this. You have never given any reason why there
should be rust stains in only half of the pipe and flow meter orifice. You
cannot give any reason for this other than the fact that it was half empty.
You have also refused to tell us why the manual warns against running the
meter with a half-empty pipe if -- as you claim -- such pipes do not exist.
You have evaded discussing this proof. You have not discussed anything.
Plus I am sure you have no idea whether Rossi checked the steam quality.

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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 their attorneys are incompetent amateurs who would make a 
mistake like that?


- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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, there would be nothing ludicrous about this at all if the
flowmeter were placed at the bottom of a U. This would work fine. It would
be just as good as placing the thing next to the pumps, or between the
reservoir and pumps. The flowmeter only works with liquid water, not steam,
so it has to be placed at one of these three locations. It will measure the
entire volume of water at any of the three, so they would be equally okay.

To measure enthalpy, you also have to also measure the steam quality, with
some other instrument. I do not think Rossi did that.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 their attorneys are incompetent amateurs who would make a mistake
like that?

- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

>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 Teflon brain syndrome in this problem, why should I
continue to discuss with you? Really?

peter

PS. To help you, isn't the pump witched? Do you knowq what type it was?
Do you know the diagram?


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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 be on the condensate return pipe from
>> the customer.
>>
>
> Since the pipe is half empty, that is where it has to be.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[a.ashfield]

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 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 be on the condensate return
pipe from the customer.


Since the pipe is half empty, that is where it has to be.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 be on the condensate return pipe from
> the customer.
>

Since the pipe is half empty, that is where it has to be.

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

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 public documents in their response to the charge.  If the flow meter 
had been where you suggest they would have shown it.

AA

On 9/1/2016 10:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

That seems HIGHLY unlikely.


Why? Where else would you put a flowmeter intended for liquid? It 
would not work in the steam. (Assuming there is actually steam.)


  Can you prove the flow meter was not downstream of the reservoir?


I do not know what you mean. Downstream from reservoir are the the 
reactors. I don't know if you could put one flow meter there. 
Downstream from them it is steam (or hot water at 102 deg C).


Anyway, we know the pipe was half-full, and it would not be between 
the pumps and the heat exchanger. It has to be at a gravity return, 
and the only likely place for that is between the heat exchanger and 
the reservoir.


Murray;s say so is not proof.


It is filed with the court. It better be true, or I.H. stands to lose 
$267 million. It is a heck of a lot better proof than anything Rossi says.


. . . If IH had a case I think they would have shown a piping
drawing by now.


How do you know they have not done this? Because they have not 
provided a diagram to you, personally?


Again and again you say that something you personally have not seen 
does not exist.


- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

That seems HIGHLY unlikely.


Why? Where else would you put a flowmeter intended for liquid? It would not
work in the steam. (Assuming there is actually steam.)


  Can you prove the flow meter was not downstream of the reservoir?
>

I do not know what you mean. Downstream from reservoir are the the
reactors. I don't know if you could put one flow meter there. Downstream
from them it is steam (or hot water at 102 deg C).

Anyway, we know the pipe was half-full, and it would not be between the
pumps and the heat exchanger. It has to be at a gravity return, and the
only likely place for that is between the heat exchanger and the reservoir.



> Murray;s say so is not proof.


It is filed with the court. It better be true, or I.H. stands to lose $267
million. It is a heck of a lot better proof than anything Rossi says.



> . . .   If IH had a case I think they would have shown a piping drawing by
> now.


How do you know they have not done this? Because they have not provided a
diagram to you, personally?

Again and again you say that something you personally have not seen does
not exist.

- Jed

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

[a.ashfield]

That seems HIGHLY unlikely.  Can you prove the flow meter was not 
downstream of the reservoir?
Murray;s say so is not proof.  If IH had a case I think they would have 
shown a piping drawing by now.


AA

On 9/1/2016 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
To summarize: I think the flow meter is installed downstream from the 
heat exchanger, where there is liquid water at  ~68°C. From there, the 
water flows downhill (by gravity only) back to the reservoir. Since 
the pipe is larger than it needs to be for this volume of water, it is 
half full.


- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

To summarize: I think the flow meter is installed downstream from the heat
exchanger, where there is liquid water at  ~68°C. From there, the water
flows downhill (by gravity only) back to the reservoir. Since the pipe is
larger than it needs to be for this volume of water, it is half full.

- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

excuse me, is this a serious answer? What has the hose to do with the Plant?
>

The pipe in Rossi's plant was half empty. That's the whole point.

(Note that the second photo I pointed shows a half-empty pipe, not a hose.)

I cannot understand what you are disputing here. Anyone can demonstrate
this with a pipe or bottle. You reduce the flow rate until the pipe is only
partially filled with water. That's all there is to it. Any drainage pipe
works this way, because drainage pipes are intentionally much larger than
the expected maximum flow. See:

http://il3.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/3773036/thumb/1.jpg

Note the brown silt left on the bottom of the pipe. After the water
finishes draining, some of this silt will remain, and it will indicate the
high water mark. This is exactly what happened with Rossi's reactor pipe
and flow meter.

- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

excuse me, is this a serious answer? What has the hose to do with the Plant?
Anyway thank you, it was enough I fear your "logic" is contagious so I
apologize to anybody who will read your messages. Rational discussion with
you is impossible.
peter



On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> But starting from the diagram, you can imagine how to make the pipes haf
>> full. Can you, independently from this affair?
>>
>
> I do not need a diagram for that. I can do it easily, with an open hose.
> Put the hose on the ground. Turn the water a little until a small stream of
> water flows out of the hose. The hose will be mostly full of air. Like this
> bottle:
>
> http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-25293811.html
>
> Or this hose:
>
> http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-32645161/stock-photo-well.html
>
> You can easily avoid this by picking up the end of the hose and holding it
> in the air. The flow will stop for a while as the hose fills up. It will
> fill up, and after a while the water will pour out of the end. That would
> be a U shaped pipe, recommended for a flow meter. Rossi did not use this
> configuration.
>
>
>
>> You are not aware of what terrible ies you say?
>>
>
> Have you never seen a hose or bottle of water?
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

But starting from the diagram, you can imagine how to make the pipes haf
> full. Can you, independently from this affair?
>

I do not need a diagram for that. I can do it easily, with an open hose.
Put the hose on the ground. Turn the water a little until a small stream of
water flows out of the hose. The hose will be mostly full of air. Like this
bottle:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-25293811.html

Or this hose:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-32645161/stock-photo-well.html

You can easily avoid this by picking up the end of the hose and holding it
in the air. The flow will stop for a while as the hose fills up. It will
fill up, and after a while the water will pour out of the end. That would
be a U shaped pipe, recommended for a flow meter. Rossi did not use this
configuration.



> You are not aware of what terrible ies you say?
>

Have you never seen a hose or bottle of water?

- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

But starting from the diagram, you can imagine how to make the pipes haf
full. Can you, independently from this affair? Is Rossi the inventor of
this scheme any plumber can use?
You are not aware of what terrible ies you say?
peter


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> please take the image of the flowmeter and show how can you see inside it
>> when in function.
>>
>
> Of course you cannot see inside it when it is functioning. Why would you
> need to do that? The rust is still there when it stops.
>
>
>
>>   And how do myou open it when ot working?OK?
>>
>
> You wait until it is turned off. What a strange comment. Have you never
> fixed plumbing?
>
>
>
>> Let Rossi in peace, and tell NOW where was that damned flowmeter placed;
>> if you don't know ask IH
>>
>
> I will tell you nothing that has not been revealed by Rossi or I.H. If you
> want new information, you must ask them.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

please take the image of the flowmeter and show how can you see inside it
> when in function.
>

Of course you cannot see inside it when it is functioning. Why would you
need to do that? The rust is still there when it stops.



>   And how do myou open it when ot working?OK?
>

You wait until it is turned off. What a strange comment. Have you never
fixed plumbing?



> Let Rossi in peace, and tell NOW where was that damned flowmeter placed;
> if you don't know ask IH
>

I will tell you nothing that has not been revealed by Rossi or I.H. If you
want new information, you must ask them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[GMail brudersdorf]

Excellent. Theories worthy of the name are testable. Let's do that! 
Until then, they are written on the wind. 

BillR

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:59 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:
> 
> AA  Rossi says he has a theory, so you are wrong.
> Jed  I know he has a theory, but I believe it keeps changing, and the 
> theorists tell me it has no merit."
> 
> In your last comment you stated he did not have a theory.
> I was not aware there was a consensus yet on the theory of how cold fusion 
> works.
> 
> AA
> 
> 
>> On 8/31/2016 9:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> a.ashfield  wrote:
>> 
>>> The reaction must be nuclear in some form, even if it is not fusion.
>> 
>> If you claim it is nuclear reaction of type A and it turns out to be B 
>> instead, that puts your patent in jeopardy. Since you cannot patent a 
>> theory, there is no point to mentioning one at all. That is according to 
>> David French.
>>  
>> 
>>> Rossi says he has a theory, so you are wrong.
>> 
>> I know he has a theory, but I believe it keeps changing, and the theorists 
>> tell me it has no merit.
>> 
>> - Jed
> 

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

[Peter Gluck]

please take the image of the flowmeter and show how can you see inside it
when in function.  And how do myou open it when ot working?OK?

Have you ever seen the scheme of the plant? Let Rossi in peace, and tell
NOW where was that damned flowmeter placed; if you don't know ask IH

take please this scheme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piping_and_instrumentation_diagram

and arrange irt to work with the pipes half full/empty. OK? Everybody knows
how, isnt't it?

peter





On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Can you give details, facts, iit was sealed and Penon has rfemoved the
>> seals, has he asked Murray, "come Joe, take a look to it"?
>>
>
> What the heck does "sealed" mean? Where were these "seals"? In front of
> the orifice? The water has to freely flow through a flow meter, or the
> meter does not work. Have you ever seen a flow meter? You can look right
> into the orifice. Just unscrew the pipe and have a look.
>
> If you could not see inside a meter, the water could not flow through it.
>
> If you are thinking the seals were on the pipe, like sealing wax, I
> suppose the people from I.H. ignored them and went ahead and unscrewed the
> pipe.
>
>
>
>> Has Murray a photo of those stains?
>>
>
> I have heard they have all kinds of photos and detailed analyses. I have
> not seen them.
>
>
>
>> If the pipes are working half-empty
>> then the how does water flow in the vertical segements?
>>
>
> What vertical segments? There aren't any as far as I know. Rossi claimed
> there were, but he lied.
>
>
>
>> Have you idea about the absurdity of this scheme?
>>
>
> There is nothing absurd about it. Why do you think the manufacturer warns
> against using the meter with a half-empty pipe, if pipes are never
> half-empty?
>
>
>
>> You was asked to give a sketch of the piping showing where was placed the
>> flowmeter you answered it was placed so that the pipes where half full,
>> unsmart tautology.
>>
>
> What's unsmart about it? Anyone can arrange a pipe to be half full. Rossi
> had no trouble doing that. People looking at the system had no trouble
> seeing that is what he did.
>
> If you want a sketch, I suggest you ask Rossi for one. Beware though: he
> will lie, and claim there was a U (with vertical segments).
>
>
> You can come with any photo
>> of roofs with no ventillation.
>>
>
> See for yourself! Look at the photos. Where is the ventilation? If there
> were enough ventilation for 1 MW of heat, it would be plainly visible.
> Where is it? Why hasn't Rossi given you photos of it? I predict he will not
> upload any in response to the counter-suit.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

AA  Rossi says he has a theory, so you are wrong.
Jed  I know he has a theory, but I believe it keeps changing, and the 
theorists tell me it has no merit."


In your last comment you stated he did not have a theory.
I was not aware there was a consensus yet on the theory of how cold 
fusion works.


AA


On 8/31/2016 9:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

The reaction must be nuclear in some form, even if it is not fusion.


If you claim it is nuclear reaction of type A and it turns out to be B 
instead, that puts your patent in jeopardy. Since you cannot patent a 
theory, there is no point to mentioning one at all. That is according 
to David French.


Rossi says he has a theory, so you are wrong.


I know he has a theory, but I believe it keeps changing, and the 
theorists tell me it has no merit.


- Jed

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Can you give details, facts, iit was sealed and Penon has rfemoved the
> seals, has he asked Murray, "come Joe, take a look to it"?
>

What the heck does "sealed" mean? Where were these "seals"? In front of the
orifice? The water has to freely flow through a flow meter, or the meter
does not work. Have you ever seen a flow meter? You can look right into the
orifice. Just unscrew the pipe and have a look.

If you could not see inside a meter, the water could not flow through it.

If you are thinking the seals were on the pipe, like sealing wax, I suppose
the people from I.H. ignored them and went ahead and unscrewed the pipe.



> Has Murray a photo of those stains?
>

I have heard they have all kinds of photos and detailed analyses. I have
not seen them.



> If the pipes are working half-empty
> then the how does water flow in the vertical segements?
>

What vertical segments? There aren't any as far as I know. Rossi claimed
there were, but he lied.



> Have you idea about the absurdity of this scheme?
>

There is nothing absurd about it. Why do you think the manufacturer warns
against using the meter with a half-empty pipe, if pipes are never
half-empty?



> You was asked to give a sketch of the piping showing where was placed the
> flowmeter you answered it was placed so that the pipes where half full,
> unsmart tautology.
>

What's unsmart about it? Anyone can arrange a pipe to be half full. Rossi
had no trouble doing that. People looking at the system had no trouble
seeing that is what he did.

If you want a sketch, I suggest you ask Rossi for one. Beware though: he
will lie, and claim there was a U (with vertical segments).


You can come with any photo
> of roofs with no ventillation.
>

See for yourself! Look at the photos. Where is the ventilation? If there
were enough ventilation for 1 MW of heat, it would be plainly visible.
Where is it? Why hasn't Rossi given you photos of it? I predict he will not
upload any in response to the counter-suit.

- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

Can you give details, facts, iit was sealed and Penon has rfemoved the
seals, has he asked Murray, "come Joe, take a look to it"?
Has Murray a photo of those stains? If the pipes are working half-empty
then the how does water flow in the vertical segements?
Have you idea about the absurdity of this scheme? You was asked to give a
sketch of the piping showing where was placed the flowmeter you answered it
was placed so that the pipes where half full, unsmart tautology. Isn't it
time to cease with this unqualificable impossibility? Absurdity at the
third power.
Similar to your new idea - about Rossi forgetting the spell. The choice is
simple- he has never achieved excess heat or the 1MW plant has worked well.
As the leaked ERV data show it clearly. You can come with any photo
of roofs with no ventillation. Take care, loss of rationality can be
non-reversible.

IF you care for LENR can you tell who will speak to DoD next month?

peter



On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
>
>> . . . there was no trace of excess heat, this being obvious because there
>> are rust stains on the static vanes of a flowmeter that was not opened but
>> Murray had seen them . . .
>>
>
> That is preposterous. Of course it was opened! When you remove a flow
> meter from a pipe you can look right inside the meter. It takes a pipe
> wrench and ten minutes.
>
> That makes no sense at all.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> . . . there was no trace of excess heat, this being obvious because there
> are rust stains on the static vanes of a flowmeter that was not opened but
> Murray had seen them . . .
>

That is preposterous. Of course it was opened! When you remove a flow meter
from a pipe you can look right inside the meter. It takes a pipe wrench and
ten minutes.

That makes no sense at all.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

The reaction must be nuclear in some form, even if it is not fusion.
>

If you claim it is nuclear reaction of type A and it turns out to be B
instead, that puts your patent in jeopardy. Since you cannot patent a
theory, there is no point to mentioning one at all. That is according to
David French.


Rossi says he has a theory, so you are wrong.
>

I know he has a theory, but I believe it keeps changing, and the theorists
tell me it has no merit.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

The reaction must be nuclear in some form, even if it is not fusion.
Rossi says he has a theory, so you are wrong.

AA

On 8/30/2016 6:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Until I see a patent with a claim talking about heat from a
nuclear reaction at low temperatures I assume the block is still
in place for America patents.


You do not understand patents. Talking about a nuclear reaction would 
be a terrible idea because no one knows what nuclear reaction occurs 
in cold fusion. So whatever you say about it might turn out to be 
wrong, and that would put the whole patent in jeopardy.


David French says it is best to say nothing about theory when you have 
no firm theory. I am sure Rossi has no theory.


- Jed

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

[Peter Gluck]

Dear Alain,

I am just writing an editorial about progress blindness e.g. Jed Rothwell
is unable or unwilling to see any progress in what Rossi did achieved
starting from 2011 and accusing Rossi of possible amnesia- in the best
times he was able to get excess heat but later not, aat the 1year 1MW Test
there was no trace of excess heat, this being obvious because there are
rust stains on the static vanes of a flowmeter that was not opened but
Murray had seen them- miraculously. posed to the 10 months average results
published by IH, saying results are as Rossi claims.

However I want to show that you are aon a contrary position with what you
call: good old electrolytic method. ENEA and SKINR have performed indeed
high level and quality materials science studies however progress in
reliability and reproducibility remains in the best case incremental.

A friendly advise please re-analyse what can PdD wet offer scientifically
and technologically, do not be the prisoner of the glorious but
non-developing past.
I am ready to publish what you want about the progress of PdD.
amities,
peter

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

> On the opposite, maybe not specifically in Italy, but results get more and
> more reliable.
> for ICCF15 ENEA reported results where success evolved from unreliable to
> more than 60% success because of cristallography surface choice.
>
> as I read the litterature of PdD, it seems more and more reliable for good
> old electrolythic method.
>
> what is changing however is the reduction of budgets.
> first experiments were done in the 90s with short but noticeable budgets,
> but then it became very hard to work., in the 2k period it seems budget is
> the big problem.
>
> for NiH maybe your notice apply and we must take the consequence.
>
> 2016-08-30 23:09 GMT+02:00 David L. Babcock :
>
>> I am struck by a curious parallel between many investigational endeavors
>> in science, the 'soft sciences', near science, and maybe-science (cold
>> fusion may or may not be in this last category). All are troubled by a
>> sequence comprising initial success, followed by a long irregular slope
>> down into no-results-above-noise.
>>
>> The soft sciences are abuzz right now with a huge failure-to-replicate of
>> all kinds of findings that were thought to be rock solid. Sort of as though
>> the more you look, the less you see. Wish I could give a link. Google on
>> failure to replicate.
>>
>> In parapsychology, there is the researcher who after years of at first
>> very good results, then worse results with the same tests, until at last
>> results so bad she decided it was all mistaken.
>>
>> In comes the coyote, the Trickster.  In "*The Trickster and the
>> Paranormal", (George Hansen) *-which I did not read, but read about- a
>> good argument is made that err, "something", is at work screwing up the
>> works, by either giving good results where none is warranted, or subverting
>> good results over time to discredit/stymie/trick the researcher.  I take
>> the liberty, at lest for this exposition, of taking this out of the
>> paranormal "box" and jamming it helter skelter into particle physics. Or
>> whatever physics covers LENR.
>>
>> For a brain transition enhancer, think poltergeist.  (If you check into
>> the 'Glitch in the matrix' Reddit, there is a lot there to suggest trickery
>> in the numerous reports of moving or hiding small objects.)
>>
>> Enter Rossi. A prime target. The master of trickery, of (a least!) the
>> trickery of moving small objects, gives Rossi a tantalizing glimpse of fame
>> and fortune by shuffling atomic particles around. And keeps it up until
>> Rossi is backed into a serious corner, totally tricked. Totally conned, he
>> is a prime target because he is himself a showman, a conman.  Other
>> researchers suffer only frustration and, some, heartbreak. Less hubris?
>>
>> This does not tell us whether cold fusion is real or not, but it may be
>> implying strongly that successfully deploying it may involve a major
>> paradigm shift, perhaps of the nature of a core of true believers at each
>> power site, in constant prayer (or chanting, candle lighting, pigeon
>> slaying).
>>
>> On 8/30/2016 8:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>> If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi retrograded
>>> performance with time?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot
>> how to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older reactors
>> to make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record of what he had
>> done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat.
>>
>> It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have
>> enough information to judge.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> 

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

[Alain Sepeda]

On the opposite, maybe not specifically in Italy, but results get more and
more reliable.
for ICCF15 ENEA reported results where success evolved from unreliable to
more than 60% success because of cristallography surface choice.

as I read the litterature of PdD, it seems more and more reliable for good
old electrolythic method.

what is changing however is the reduction of budgets.
first experiments were done in the 90s with short but noticeable budgets,
but then it became very hard to work., in the 2k period it seems budget is
the big problem.

for NiH maybe your notice apply and we must take the consequence.

2016-08-30 23:09 GMT+02:00 David L. Babcock :

> I am struck by a curious parallel between many investigational endeavors
> in science, the 'soft sciences', near science, and maybe-science (cold
> fusion may or may not be in this last category). All are troubled by a
> sequence comprising initial success, followed by a long irregular slope
> down into no-results-above-noise.
>
> The soft sciences are abuzz right now with a huge failure-to-replicate of
> all kinds of findings that were thought to be rock solid. Sort of as though
> the more you look, the less you see. Wish I could give a link. Google on
> failure to replicate.
>
> In parapsychology, there is the researcher who after years of at first
> very good results, then worse results with the same tests, until at last
> results so bad she decided it was all mistaken.
>
> In comes the coyote, the Trickster.  In "*The Trickster and the
> Paranormal", (George Hansen) *-which I did not read, but read about- a
> good argument is made that err, "something", is at work screwing up the
> works, by either giving good results where none is warranted, or subverting
> good results over time to discredit/stymie/trick the researcher.  I take
> the liberty, at lest for this exposition, of taking this out of the
> paranormal "box" and jamming it helter skelter into particle physics. Or
> whatever physics covers LENR.
>
> For a brain transition enhancer, think poltergeist.  (If you check into
> the 'Glitch in the matrix' Reddit, there is a lot there to suggest trickery
> in the numerous reports of moving or hiding small objects.)
>
> Enter Rossi. A prime target. The master of trickery, of (a least!) the
> trickery of moving small objects, gives Rossi a tantalizing glimpse of fame
> and fortune by shuffling atomic particles around. And keeps it up until
> Rossi is backed into a serious corner, totally tricked. Totally conned, he
> is a prime target because he is himself a showman, a conman.  Other
> researchers suffer only frustration and, some, heartbreak. Less hubris?
>
> This does not tell us whether cold fusion is real or not, but it may be
> implying strongly that successfully deploying it may involve a major
> paradigm shift, perhaps of the nature of a core of true believers at each
> power site, in constant prayer (or chanting, candle lighting, pigeon
> slaying).
>
> On 8/30/2016 8:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>> If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi retrograded
>> performance with time?
>>
>
> Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot how
> to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older reactors to
> make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record of what he had
> done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat.
>
> It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have
> enough information to judge.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Until I see a patent with a claim talking about heat from a nuclear
> reaction at low temperatures I assume the block is still in place for
> America patents.
>

You do not understand patents. Talking about a nuclear reaction would be a
terrible idea because no one knows what nuclear reaction occurs in cold
fusion. So whatever you say about it might turn out to be wrong, and that
would put the whole patent in jeopardy.

David French says it is best to say nothing about theory when you have no
firm theory. I am sure Rossi has no theory.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

This is Rossi's latest thought on the E-Cat schedule.

1.
   Andrea Rossi
   August 30, 2016 at 8:44 AM
   


   Eugenio Mieli:
   1- continue the manufacturing of the industrial plants: NOW
   2- complete the R of the QuarkX to sell the first unit: within 2016
   3- presentation of the QuarkX prototype: within 2016
   4- start massive production of the E-Cats in the USA and in Sweden:
   2017- 2018
   Thank you for your attention,
   Warm Regards,
   A.R.

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Until I see a patent with a claim talking about heat from a nuclear 
reaction at low temperatures I assume the block is still in place for 
America patents.
I like the thought of Rossi taking a working QuarkX into the patent 
office and placing it on the examiner's desk...


AA


On 8/30/2016 5:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

What I meant by secret stuff were things I didn't know.  Of course
they would have to be identified in the patent.


Okay.

I think Rossi's patent attorney did well to get as much as he did
past the "no cold fusion" road block.


He could have gotten anything past them. The examiner was reportedly 
enthusiastic and willing to grant more. Apparently, the no cold fusion 
roadblock has been unblocked. Although it would be prudent not to 
mention cold fusion in an application. There is no need to mention it.


  IN my opinion it would take a major company like Lockheed with
political pull, plus a working model, plus good lawyers,  to get
the patent office to change its ways.


Apparently not. Rossi and I.H. have pulled it off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> What I meant by secret stuff were things I didn't know.  Of course they
> would have to be identified in the patent.
>

Okay.



> I think Rossi's patent attorney did well to get as much as he did past the
> "no cold fusion" road block.
>

He could have gotten anything past them. The examiner was reportedly
enthusiastic and willing to grant more. Apparently, the no cold fusion
roadblock has been unblocked. Although it would be prudent not to mention
cold fusion in an application. There is no need to mention it.



>   IN my opinion it would take a major company like Lockheed with political
> pull, plus a working model, plus good lawyers,  to get the patent office to
> change its ways.
>

Apparently not. Rossi and I.H. have pulled it off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
What I meant by secret stuff were things I didn't know.  Of course they 
would have to be identified in the patent.


I think Rossi's patent attorney did well to get as much as he did past 
the "no cold fusion" road block.  IN my opinion it would take a major 
company like Lockheed with political pull, plus a working model, plus 
good lawyers,  to get the patent office to change its ways.  Rossi has 
little or no hope of doing that.  Even then, a patent has no values 
until after it's been challenged in court.


AA


On 8/30/2016 5:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

The patent really only covers one design of reactor, that is
already probably dated.


If the patent is inadequate, and it does not protect all of his 
intellectual property, Rossi should have filed a better patent, or 
several more. It is up to the inventor to seek adequate intellectual 
property protection. Since Rossi was granted a patent, it stands to 
reason that he could have gotten additional ones.


If someone could actually patent something that claimed Ni/LAH/Li
(plus secret stuff) . . .


You cannot claim secret stuff in a patent. You cannot withhold any 
information. You have to reveal every detail such that a PHOSITA can 
replicate. If you do not do this, the patent is invalid.


. . . produced large excess nuclear heat when heated to X C it
would blow Rossi's patent out of the water.


That would be Rossi's fault.

  As you know the patent office would reject that because they
have someone like you working there who believes cold fusion is
impossible.


They did not reject this patent, so you are wrong.

- Jed

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

[David L. Babcock]

I am struck by a curious parallel between many investigational endeavors 
in science, the 'soft sciences', near science, and maybe-science (cold 
fusion may or may not be in this last category). All are troubled by a 
sequence comprising initial success, followed by a long irregular slope 
down into no-results-above-noise.


The soft sciences are abuzz right now with a huge failure-to-replicate 
of all kinds of findings that were thought to be rock solid. Sort of as 
though the more you look, the less you see. Wish I could give a link. 
Google on failure to replicate.


In parapsychology, there is the researcher who after years of at first 
very good results, then worse results with the same tests, until at last 
results so bad she decided it was all mistaken.


In comes the coyote, the Trickster.  In "/The Trickster and the 
Paranormal", (George Hansen) /-which I did not read, but read about-a 
good argument is made that err, "something", is at work screwing up the 
works, by either giving good results where none is warranted, or 
subverting good results over time to discredit/stymie/trick the 
researcher.  I take the liberty, at lest for this exposition, of taking 
this out of the paranormal "box" and jamming it helter skelter into 
particle physics. Or whatever physics covers LENR.


For a brain transition enhancer, think poltergeist.  (If you check into 
the 'Glitch in the matrix' Reddit, there is a lot there to suggest 
trickery in the numerous reports of moving or hiding small objects.)


Enter Rossi. A prime target. The master of trickery, of (a least!) the 
trickery of moving small objects, gives Rossi a tantalizing glimpse of 
fame and fortune by shuffling atomic particles around. And keeps it up 
until Rossi is backed into a serious corner, totally tricked. Totally 
conned, he is a prime target because he is himself a showman, a conman.  
Other researchers suffer only frustration and, some, heartbreak. Less 
hubris?


This does not tell us whether cold fusion is real or not, but it may be 
implying strongly that successfully deploying it may involve a major 
paradigm shift, perhaps of the nature of a core of true believers at 
each power site, in constant prayer (or chanting, candle lighting, 
pigeon slaying).



On 8/30/2016 8:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

[snip]

If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi
retrograded performance with time?


Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot 
how to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older 
reactors to make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record 
of what he had done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat.


It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have 
enough information to judge.


- Jed





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

The patent really only covers one design of reactor, that is already
> probably dated.
>

If the patent is inadequate, and it does not protect all of his
intellectual property, Rossi should have filed a better patent, or several
more. It is up to the inventor to seek adequate intellectual property
protection. Since Rossi was granted a patent, it stands to reason that he
could have gotten additional ones.



> If someone could actually patent something that claimed Ni/LAH/Li (plus
> secret stuff) . . .
>

You cannot claim secret stuff in a patent. You cannot withhold any
information. You have to reveal every detail such that a PHOSITA can
replicate. If you do not do this, the patent is invalid.



> . . . produced large excess nuclear heat when heated to X C it would blow
> Rossi's patent out of the water.
>

That would be Rossi's fault.



>   As you know the patent office would reject that because they have
> someone like you working there who believes cold fusion is impossible.
>

They did not reject this patent, so you are wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

I take it back.  You are naive.
The patent really only covers one design of reactor, that is already 
probably dated.
If someone could actually patent something that claimed Ni/LAH/Li (plus 
secret stuff) produced large excess nuclear heat when heated to X C it 
would blow Rossi's patent out of the water.  As you know the patent 
office would reject that because they have someone like you working 
there who believes cold fusion is impossible.


AA

On 8/30/2016 4:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I doubt you are that naive.  The patent doesn't even mention cold
fusion or LENR because if it had the patent would have been
stalled indefinitely..


It makes no difference whether the patent mentions these things are 
not. As long as it works (meaning it produces cold fusion), it covers 
the invention and protects IP. There would be no point to filing it 
otherwise.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed: "Rossi did not reply to Exhibit 5. If he had given valid, 
reasonable, believable responses, they would have paid him $85 million. 
So I do not think he had any valid responses."


For crying out loud, he HASN'T filed a response yet.

AA
'
On 8/30/2016 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Court filings are NOT proof.


Okay, but they sure as hell are not "third party hearsay" either. And 
if these documents are fake it will be catastrophic for I.H., as I said.



Lawyers will try anything with a hope of working.


There is no hope that fake documents would work. If these are fake, 
Rossi can easily prove that.


Do you seriously believe that one of the best law firms in the US 
would file fake documents?


 You have not even seen Rossi's reply to that yet, but it will
take a trial to determine the truth.


Rossi did not reply to Exhibit 5. If he had given valid, reasonable, 
believable responses, they would have paid him $85 million. So I do 
not think he had any valid responses.


I doubt there will be a trial.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I doubt you are that naive.  The patent doesn't even mention cold fusion
> or LENR because if it had the patent would have been stalled indefinitely..
>

It makes no difference whether the patent mentions these things are not. As
long as it works (meaning it produces cold fusion), it covers the invention
and protects IP. There would be no point to filing it otherwise.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Court filings are NOT proof.
>

Okay, but they sure as hell are not "third party hearsay" either. And if
these documents are fake it will be catastrophic for I.H., as I said.



> Lawyers will try anything with a hope of working.
>

There is no hope that fake documents would work. If these are fake, Rossi
can easily prove that.

Do you seriously believe that one of the best law firms in the US would
file fake documents?



>  You have not even seen Rossi's reply to that yet, but it will take a
> trial to determine the truth.
>

Rossi did not reply to Exhibit 5. If he had given valid, reasonable,
believable responses, they would have paid him $85 million. So I do not
think he had any valid responses.

I doubt there will be a trial.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed,.
I doubt you are that naive.  The patent doesn't even mention cold fusion 
or LENR because if it had the patent would have been stalled 
indefinitely..   The use of nickel and H2 will undoubtedly be challenged 
as he wasn't the first to use them.  Just what do you think the patent 
protects?
Rossi says he is working on a large number of other patents but they 
have yet to surface.  Until proven otherwise I think he has probably 
invented something new with the QuarkX  too.

AA

On 8/30/2016 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

The bottom line is that Rossi has no real protection from
competition except to sell the reactors are a very competitive
cost. So he cant give details, nor is it to his advantage to prove
it works scientifically.


That is incorrect. He has a patent. If it is valid patent, that is the 
best protection IP there can be. If it is not a valid patent, that is 
his fault.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Court filings are NOT proof.  Lawyers will try anything with a hope of 
working.  You have not even seen Rpssi's reply to that yet, but it will 
take a trial to determine the truth.

AA


On 8/30/2016 3:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Third party hearsay is not going to convince someone like me who
is waiting for provable facts.


Documents filed by I.H. in a court case are not "third party hearsay." 
Again, you redefine words to mean something they do not mean at all.


These are original source documents. If they are fake, I.H. will 
probably lose the lawsuit and be forced to pay $267 million. It is 
extremely unlikely that a company represented by one of the best law 
firms in the US would file fake documents and fake photos. That would 
be a catastrophically stupid thing to do.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

The bottom line is that Rossi has no real protection from competition
> except to sell the reactors are a very competitive cost. So he cant give
> details, nor is it to his advantage to prove it works scientifically.
>

That is incorrect. He has a patent. If it is valid patent, that is the best
protection IP there can be. If it is not a valid patent, that is his fault.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> Third party hearsay is not going to convince someone like me who is
> waiting for provable facts.
>

Documents filed by I.H. in a court case are not "third party hearsay."
Again, you redefine words to mean something they do not mean at all.

These are original source documents. If they are fake, I.H. will probably
lose the lawsuit and be forced to pay $267 million. It is extremely
unlikely that a company represented by one of the best law firms in the US
would file fake documents and fake photos. That would be a catastrophically
stupid thing to do.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I wouldn't waste my time following this if I didn't think there was a 
reasonable chance of it working.

You are certain it doesn't, so why waste your time on it?
Third party hearsay is not going to convince someone like me who is 
waiting for provable facts.

AA


On 8/30/2016 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It is indeed possible but you don't have definitive evidence to
judge the performance of the 1 MW plant either.


Yes, I do. Assuming the claims in Exhibit 5 are correct and the photos 
in Exhibit 18 are the photos in Exhibit 26 are real, they are 
irrefutable proof that the test was fake.


If Exhibits 18 and 26 are themselves fake, then it is possible there 
was excess heat, but I am sure it was not 1 MW.


The fact remains the accumulating evidence points to LENR in
general, and the E-Cat in particular, working.


No, the evidence against the 1 MW test is overwhelming. If I.H. is 
telling the truth, there is not the slightest chance it worked. I am 
sure they are telling the truth. You, apparently, think that Rossi is 
telling the truth.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Assuming the claims in Exhibit 5 are correct and the photos in Exhibit 18
> are the photos in Exhibit 26 are real, they are irrefutable proof that the
> test was fake.
>

I meant Exhibits 5 and 26. Not 18.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> It is indeed possible but you don't have definitive evidence to judge the
> performance of the 1 MW plant either.
>

Yes, I do. Assuming the claims in Exhibit 5 are correct and the photos in
Exhibit 18 are the photos in Exhibit 26 are real, they are irrefutable
proof that the test was fake.

If Exhibits 18 and 26 are themselves fake, then it is possible there was
excess heat, but I am sure it was not 1 MW.



> The fact remains the accumulating evidence points to LENR in general, and
> the E-Cat in particular, working.
>

No, the evidence against the 1 MW test is overwhelming. If I.H. is telling
the truth, there is not the slightest chance it worked. I am sure they are
telling the truth. You, apparently, think that Rossi is telling the truth.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Jed: "It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not 
have enough information to judge."


It is indeed possible but you don't have definitive evidence to judge 
the performance of the 1 MW plant either.
The fact remains the accumulating evidence points to LENR in general, 
and the E-Cat in particular, working.  Just how well remains to be 
proven.  I don't think there is much doubt a COP~6 is possible.

AA

On 8/30/2016 9:33 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?


You have not paid attention to what I have said. I think that the 1 MW 
test was a failure and a fraud, but I have said many times some of the 
earlier tests might have worked. We cannot rule that out. The first 
Levi test seems positive:


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf

If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi
retrograded performance with time?


Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot 
how to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older 
reactors to make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record 
of what he had done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat.


It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have 
enough information to judge.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

Alain,
Your point is obscure.  The bottom line is that Rossi has no real 
protection from competition except to sell the reactors are a very 
competitive cost. So he cant give details, nor is it to his advantage to 
prove it works scientifically.
It has not been a long time to reach market when you consider the 
novelty, instability of the process and the lack of understanding how it 
works.  If Rossi manages to get a commercial reactor to market in under 
six months, as he says he hopes to do, no one will complain.

AA


On 8/30/2016 2:33 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

One improbable hypothesis is that the strange behavior,
like reported by IH about the way the Swedish licensee was deterred, 
is that once again Rossi succeeded in convincing his partner to flee, 
so he can marry with a new bride...


I don't believe it, but we cannot be sure.

moreover consider that some strange tests show behaviors that are 
difficult to interpret as total failures.


one characteristic of Rossi, we tolerated and justified too long, is 
to maintain permanent uncertainty.




2016-08-30 0:00 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield >:


But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?
If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi
retrograded performance with time?
AA



On 8/29/2016 5:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It seems the American Physical Society is going to publish
replication results of Rossi's Ni/H2/L reactor
How are you going to explain that Jed?


Any member can publish anything at an APS conference. (They set
that rule many years ago, after a rather gruesome incident.)

This result, if true, might indicate Ni-H cold fusion works, but
that has no bearing on the fact that Rossi's 1 year test could
not possibly have produced 1 MW.

Rossi's earlier results might be real. I cannot rule that out, as
I have said before. However, there is not the slightest chance
this result is real because as I said the heat would kill
everyone in the room. Also, the flow meter and pressure readings
appear to be fake. The flow meter numbers are too regular to be
true, and the pressure is impossible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
> Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?
>

You have not paid attention to what I have said. I think that the 1 MW test
was a failure and a fraud, but I have said many times some of the earlier
tests might have worked. We cannot rule that out. The first Levi test seems
positive:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf



> If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi retrograded
> performance with time?
>

Yes, this seems likely. Patterson and several other researchers forgot how
to make working devices. Rossi reportedly destroyed his older reactors to
make new ones out of the parts. He did not keep a record of what he had
done. I think it is possible he forgot how to produce heat.

It is also possible everything was fake from the start. I do not have
enough information to judge.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Alain Sepeda]

One improbable hypothesis is that the strange behavior,
like reported by IH about the way the Swedish licensee was deterred, is
that once again Rossi succeeded in convincing his partner to flee, so he
can marry with a new bride...

I don't believe it, but we cannot be sure.

moreover consider that some strange tests show behaviors that are difficult
to interpret as total failures.

one characteristic of Rossi, we tolerated and justified too long, is to
maintain permanent uncertainty.



2016-08-30 0:00 GMT+02:00 a.ashfield :

> But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
> Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?
> If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi retrograded
> performance with time?
> AA
>
>
>
> On 8/29/2016 5:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> It seems the American Physical Society is going to publish replication
>> results of Rossi's Ni/H2/L reactor
>> How are you going to explain that Jed?
>>
>
> Any member can publish anything at an APS conference. (They set that rule
> many years ago, after a rather gruesome incident.)
>
> This result, if true, might indicate Ni-H cold fusion works, but that has
> no bearing on the fact that Rossi's 1 year test could not possibly have
> produced 1 MW.
>
> Rossi's earlier results might be real. I cannot rule that out, as I have
> said before. However, there is not the slightest chance this result is real
> because as I said the heat would kill everyone in the room. Also, the flow
> meter and pressure readings appear to be fake. The flow meter numbers are
> too regular to be true, and the pressure is impossible.
>
> - Jed
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

But countless times you have said Rossi is a fraud and the COP<1
Now you're saying the E-Cat maybe worked?
If the E-Cat worked earlier do you really suppose Rossi retrograded 
performance with time?

AA


On 8/29/2016 5:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

It seems the American Physical Society is going to publish
replication results of Rossi's Ni/H2/L reactor
How are you going to explain that Jed?


Any member can publish anything at an APS conference. (They set that 
rule many years ago, after a rather gruesome incident.)


This result, if true, might indicate Ni-H cold fusion works, but that 
has no bearing on the fact that Rossi's 1 year test could not possibly 
have produced 1 MW.


Rossi's earlier results might be real. I cannot rule that out, as I 
have said before. However, there is not the slightest chance this 
result is real because as I said the heat would kill everyone in the 
room. Also, the flow meter and pressure readings appear to be fake. 
The flow meter numbers are too regular to be true, and the pressure is 
impossible.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> It seems the American Physical Society is going to publish replication
> results of Rossi's Ni/H2/L reactor
> How are you going to explain that Jed?
>

Any member can publish anything at an APS conference. (They set that rule
many years ago, after a rather gruesome incident.)

This result, if true, might indicate Ni-H cold fusion works, but that has
no bearing on the fact that Rossi's 1 year test could not possibly have
produced 1 MW.

Rossi's earlier results might be real. I cannot rule that out, as I have
said before. However, there is not the slightest chance this result is real
because as I said the heat would kill everyone in the room. Also, the flow
meter and pressure readings appear to be fake. The flow meter numbers are
too regular to be true, and the pressure is impossible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

It seems the American Physical Society is going to publish replication 
results of Rossi's Ni/H2/L reactor

How are you going to explain that Jed?
That Rossi, who has been working on it for years can't do it, but a new 
group using hints he has published can?

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/GEC16/Session/MW6.27

Re: [Vo]:History of cold fusion in Italy

[a.ashfield]

An interesting read, but it only goes up to 2009 which is before the 
subject gets really interesting if you are interested in CF utility as I 
am.  The English version is in too good English for it to be a translation!
The mind set was that one had to look for neutrons in the early days 
rather than heat and nothing about Ni/H2 show how much Rossi brought to 
the party.  The following extracts show the academic mind set about that 
at the time.


There  are  a  number  of  experiments  that  seem  to  show  that it  is
possible  to  have  excess  heat  production  in  a  different experimental
system: nickel and hydrogen rather than palladium and deuterium. In
this case the only reasonable explanation for nuclear fusion reactions
is  the  fusion  of  hydrogen  with  one  of  the  few  deuterons that  are
always present in hydrogen as impurities.
(page 36)

.We  are  still  far  from developing  applications.  Thus,  it was  to
  be  expected  that  enterprises  that were born with the aim of having a
 practical fall-out in short time had to give up.



On 8/29/2016 10:20 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

In Italian:

ENEA, /FUSIONE FREDDA Storia Della Ricerca in Italia/. 2009, Rome, 
Italy: ENEA.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ENEAfusionefre.pdf 




In English:

ENEA, /COLD FUSION The History of Research in Italy./ 2009, Rome, 
Italy: ENEA.


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ENEAcoldfusion.pdf