Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
That sounds about right! SCAM! Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source. According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
RE: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Any idea if anyone has received the entire NASA LENR presentation? I've been checking their website (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm) for some time, and it looked promising: Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR. But, you can see that they haven't posted the presentation from the 2011 colloquium, leaving only this placeholder: Relevant Presentation: Download presentation given at a LENR Workshop at NASA GRC in 2011 [available soon]. Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:41:58 -0800 From: maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
That is quite a hit at Rossi's claims, since NASA believes that chemical reactions could not be ruled out. But it's interesting that they didn't point out other problems, such vapor problems and energy COP. The question is: they just didn't bother trying to figure that out because it was an obviously chemical reactions or they couldn't find other issues? 2011/11/10 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
It should be noted, that Rossi has shown them (NASA) more evidency than they got from Piantelli. And if they really had success with own experiments in sustained reactions, then it is not understandable why they need Piantelli Rossi. Do they possibly play a secret service type fudge-obscure-confuse-spread rumours game to protect their currently ongoing actual research? Im happy to support them ;-) Am 10.11.2011 20:41, schrieb Mary Yugo: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
On 11-11-10 03:41 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: It should be noted, that Rossi has shown them (NASA) more evidency than they got from Piantelli. And if they really had success with own experiments in sustained reactions, then it is not understandable why they need Piantelli Rossi. It's not at all hard to understand. Rossi claims multiple orders of magnitude higher output than anybody else can get out of a LENR system. And that is why NASA, and everybody else, needs him (assume his claims are correct).
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
It is not reasonable to draw the conclusion that NASA believes that a chemical process might be used within Rossi's device. They are merely pointing out that it would take a very long time to absolutely rule out that possibility. Dave -Original Message- From: Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim That is quite a hit at Rossi's claims, since NASA believes that chemical reactions could not be ruled out. But it's interesting that they didn't point out other problems, such vapor problems and energy COP. The question is: they just didn't bother trying to figure that out because it was an obviously chemical reactions or they couldn't find other issues? 2011/11/10 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
At 11:41 AM 11/10/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction. According to Nelson, it would take three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat So they don't have the Oct 6 Open Ottoman / Fatcat wafer size -- are they're using the total volume. That reminds me, I need to plug that into my calculator. and several months for a 1 MW plant. The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as a single eCat at the same power. A single slide with no supporting information? What chemical ? Eh? I'm getting not to trust those NASA engineers. Are you sure they didn't mix Imperial and Metric units? (I haven't read the other responses, so I may be duplicating stuff).
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Am 10.11.2011 21:55, schrieb David Roberson: It is not reasonable to draw the conclusion that NASA believes that a chemical process might be used within Rossi's device. They are merely pointing out that it would take a very long time to absolutely rule out that possibility. One must always think logical. Getting no conclusion is without purpose. Always look which conclusions do /really/ arise and from this formulate further questions. It is reasonable to draw the conclusion, they have not seen evidency or positive results and they know nothing. From this the question arises, why do they continue to speak about this why do they waste their valuable time? Might be their motivation is neither technical nor scientifical but political? A serious motivation could be to protect their own knowledge and research.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
I may be incorrect, but I suspect that Rossi has never conducted a long term experiment in public because he does not have a controller that functions well. Everything that has been observed during the public demonstrations has been manually controlled. The self sustaining mode is merely a way to eliminate the need for a controller. The driven mode would require feedback operation where the duty cycle of the power input waveform was controlled and/or the water input flow rate would need to be under electronic valve control. To use feedback effectively, several sensors would need to be accessed. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim It should be noted, that Rossi has shown them (NASA) more evidency than hey got from Piantelli. And if they really had success with own experiments in sustained eactions, then it is not understandable why they need Piantelli Rossi. Do they possibly play a secret service type fudge-obscure-confuse-spread rumours game to protect their currently ngoing actual research? Im happy to support them ;-) Am 10.11.2011 20:41, schrieb Mary Yugo: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Alan J Fletcher wrote: The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as a single eCat at the same power. Well said. Eh? I'm getting not to trust those NASA engineers. Are you sure they didn't mix Imperial and Metric units? I wouldn't put it past them. That's how they whacked into Mars instead of landing there. They will never live that down. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Why did Krivit only release one slide? What did the others slides say? I requested a nasa FOIA request for the all of the slides. But if anyone knows Michael Larsen's and can request the slides, that might be faster. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
On 11-11-10 04:32 PM, ecat builder wrote: Why did Krivit only release one slide? Personally I wouldn't trust Krivit as far as I could throw Rossi. My immediate jump-to suspicion is that he released exactly as much as would support his case, and nothing more. What did the others slides say? I requested a nasa FOIA request for the all of the slides. But if anyone knows Michael Larsen's and can request the slides, that might be faster. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Hi, On 10-11-2011 20:59, Dusty wrote: That sounds about right! SCAM! While cleaning up my SPAM folder I stumbled across the following email of a month ago. It seems that spammers have found Rossi as a way to earn money as well. Kind regards, MoB == Return-Path: @unicredit.org Received: from mail.ecs-car.it (81-208-36-50.ip.fastwebnet.it [81.208.36.50]) Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:00:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from @unicredit.org) Received: from User (unknown [41.223.66.247]) by mail.ecs-car.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AB93F6C1627; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:25:06 +0200 (CEST) Reply-To: marino.ross...@yahoo.com From: Rossi.@unicredit.org Subject: GOOD DAY, Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:27:01 -0700 Good Day My Partner, Firstly, I apologize for sending you this sensitive information via E-mail. In my banking department we discovered an abandoned sum of 13,000,000.00 EUR (Thirteen Million Euros Only) in an account that belongs to one of our Foreign customers who unfortunately lost his life with his entire family on his way to the Airport of Bologna. Since we got information about his death, we have been expecting his next of kin or relatives to come over and claim his funds because we cannot release it unless somebody applies for it as Next of kin or relation to the deceased as indicated in our banking guidelines. We want you to come in as the Next Of Kin, all needed cooperation to make the claims will be given to you by us. If you are interested kindly let us have the below information and I will give you more details. 1. Full name 2: Your private telephone and Fax numbers. 3. Occupations and Nationality. 4. Date of Birth 5, Present Location We are offering 30% of the total sum to you as our partner. We will discuss much in details when I receive your response. Thanks and good luck to us. Best regards, Mr. Marino.Ross
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
- On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Dusty wrote: That sounds about right! SCAM! Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alan J Fletcher wrote: The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as a single eCat at the same power. Well said. Indeed that could be a misspeak. If there really are units in parallel they would need to run the same time as a single unit for an effective test. That, however, is still a lot longer than this test was, IMO. The real problem with the megawatt test is that nobody except the one person Rossi said was the customer's representative saw the data. Lots of others were there and there could have been remote readouts in the room they were required to occupy for most of the experiment. But there weren't any. The generator ran the whole time and nobody but what may have been Rossi's guy saw the readings. None of the scientist and reporter observers could vouch for either the amount of energy produced by the test nor for where it came from! It's hard to know why they were even there! So basically, it's still all Rossi says. I wouldn't expect NASA to get into such fine and controversial details about Rossi's problems. What NASA basically said which matters is that they don't think Rossi's evidence is adequate to believe he has a genuine novel production method for energy. At least that's what I get out of the FOIA release and the slide.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Might be their motivation is neither technical nor scientifical but political? A serious motivation could be to protect their own knowledge and research. Are you talking about NASA? How would that work? What is it they are protecting? How does what they say about Rossi protect anything? If they are unreasonable in what they wrote, what will happen to them when the truth wins out?
