Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
defkalion does not pretend 6 month long continuous test... They make much more realistic pretention on their site. forget the detail, but seems like they run tests as one should expect, many differets design, start and stops... by the way white lies in business are common, and does not imply total lie... thinking that truth is black and white is a bit ... American... strange that the mythology of truth and lie, while US business are among the most rich in various lie concepts (vaporware, business plan, market manipulation, Enron certifies accounting...) anyway, total lie is possible, but I personally estimate it as quite improbable. 2012/1/15 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Rossi's (and Defkalion's) claims were always that their devices run unattended for a minimum of six months without refueling or other attention. In fact Rossi repeatedly said they run much longer but that he would prefer the six month interval for safety reasons until he got to know how they age in the field. If that was a lie, what else do you think Rossi lied about? If he lied about that, why believe anything he said?
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Another guess...If it is a military organization, based in (North) America and starts with the letter N, maybe its NORAD. NORAD could use a LENR power plant to power their underground bunkers. If NORAD needed nuclear power for their bunkers, they could afford to buy a small submarine style fission reactor. They would hardly buy 13 Rossi kludges at the current state of development he showed on October 28, whatever that was we didn't actually see.
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Right, at that level of development, buying one of this device as-is is only a kind of partnership (if honest), like the client and NI are (supposed to be) doing, or an expensive way to check if it works. otherwise it is a way to make retro-engineering. but one is only needed. another interpretation of the buying of 12 copy of e-cat, is that they buy them as they will be soon. a buy in advance. once you know it can work, you can trust the job to be done better. 2012/1/15 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com If NORAD needed nuclear power for their bunkers, they could afford to buy a small submarine style fission reactor. They would hardly buy 13 Rossi kludges at the current state of development he showed on October 28, whatever that was we didn't actually see.
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
As suggested I did send Rossi a copy of the statement made by Jones Beene. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg61105.html Rossi's comments were This is totally false and ridiculous. AG On 1/16/2012 4:46 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Another guess...If it is a military organization, based in (North) America and starts with the letter N, maybe its NORAD. NORAD could use a LENR power plant to power their underground bunkers. If NORAD needed nuclear power for their bunkers, they could afford to buy a small submarine style fission reactor. They would hardly buy 13 Rossi kludges at the current state of development he showed on October 28, whatever that was we didn't actually see.
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Didn't Ampenergo put some cash into Rossi last year in May? Here it is: http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/fast-facts-about-ampenergo-andrea-rossis-north-and-south-american-commercial-partner/ Wolf On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Alan J Fletchera...@well.com wrote: January 13th, 2012 at 5:51 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=15#comment-169415 The 1 MW Customer is not yet working with the 1 MW plant, because we are still completing the control systems with National Instruments. I wonder how he is running financially. Not a single eCat delivered to date; but, already pricing mega eCats for the future. No wonder the skeptics are skeptical. T
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Rossi has delivered a 1 MW E-Cat, has said they are building the other 13 x 1 MW E-Cats and he has ample cash. What he said here was they are not yet finished with the optimization of the NI system. Why read something else into his statement? AG On 1/14/2012 6:35 PM, Wolf Fischer wrote: Didn't Ampenergo put some cash into Rossi last year in May? Here it is: http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/05/fast-facts-about-ampenergo-andrea-rossis-north-and-south-american-commercial-partner/ Wolf On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Alan J Fletchera...@well.com wrote: January 13th, 2012 at 5:51 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=15#comment-169415 The 1 MW Customer is not yet working with the 1 MW plant, because we are still completing the control systems with National Instruments. I wonder how he is running financially. Not a single eCat delivered to date; but, already pricing mega eCats for the future. No wonder the skeptics are skeptical. T
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna. -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Rossi has delivered a 1 MW E-Cat, has said they are building the other 13 x 1 MW E-Cats and he has ample cash. What he said here was they are not yet finished with the optimization of the NI system. Why read something else into his statement? AG
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Where did you get the information that the customer sent the 1MW plant back? Are you an employee of the customer? (as you mention the word we) Wolf Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna. -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Rossi has delivered a 1 MW E-Cat, has said they are building the other 13 x 1 MW E-Cats and he has ample cash. What he said here was they are not yet finished with the optimization of the NI system. Why read something else into his statement? AG
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
No, I am not an employee of the customer, but it is a rather large group... ... ever heard of any large group keeping a secret secure, once too many tongue-waggers know about it? People talk. If J. Edgar could not suppress the incredible secret (that he was a gay cross-dresser) during the 40s, back when 'gay' - meant something else - AND - the USA was better about keeping secrets than today, AND the FBI pretty much could do what it wanted to, does anyone really think that Rossi can keep this kind of thing quiet for long? BTW - new movie out about Hoover. -Original Message- From: Wolf Fischer Where did you get the information that the customer sent the 1MW plant back? Are you an employee of the customer? (as you mention the word we) Wolf Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna. -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Rossi has delivered a 1 MW E-Cat, has said they are building the other 13 x 1 MW E-Cats and he has ample cash. What he said here was they are not yet finished with the optimization of the NI system. Why read something else into his statement? AG
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No, I am not an employee of the customer, but it is a rather large group... Which large group? How do you know? (generically... I am not asking you to reveal a confidential source of course)
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Thanks for the info! Can you share some more information? If so: - Do you know, if works for a short time means that it actually delivers more energy than has been put in? How long is short? ;) - Is the customer waiting for a new and improved version or has he canceled all the contracts? Wolf No, I am not an employee of the customer, but it is a rather large group... ... ever heard of any large group keeping a secret secure, once too many tongue-waggers know about it? People talk. If J. Edgar could not suppress the incredible secret (that he was a gay cross-dresser) during the 40s, back when 'gay' - meant something else - AND - the USA was better about keeping secrets than today, AND the FBI pretty much could do what it wanted to, does anyone really think that Rossi can keep this kind of thing quiet for long? BTW - new movie out about Hoover. -Original Message- From: Wolf Fischer Where did you get the information that the customer sent the 1MW plant back? Are you an employee of the customer? (as you mention the word we) Wolf Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna. -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Rossi has delivered a 1 MW E-Cat, has said they are building the other 13 x 1 MW E-Cats and he has ample cash. What he said here was they are not yet finished with the optimization of the NI system. Why read something else into his statement? AG
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Wolf Fischer wolffisc...@gmx.de wrote: Thanks for the info! Can you share some more information? If so: - Do you know, if works for a short time means that it actually delivers more energy than has been put in? How long is short? ;) - Is the customer waiting for a new and improved version or has he canceled all the contracts? I'd like to add another question: how would we know for sure that Rossi ever has had a customer? I mean other than what Rossi said, and the charade and non-demo of October 28, of course.
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
Wolf, The following is strong on opinion and weak on fact, for the obvious reason. Whenever you see the word apparently below, the factuality of the report cannot be verified. Several insiders know about this, and I am not an insider. You may remember that Defkalion backed out of the original deal with Rossi. However, the contract milestone called for a 48 hour run and apparently Rossi could not even provide 12 hours continuous. Ergo, they feel completely justified to blame AR for the split-up. IOW, Rossi reneged on the original contract and not DGT. That part is what DGT publicly stated, but regardless - the problem of 'quiescence' could not be overcome then, and it highlights the ongoing situation which is relevant to the future of BBB, the big blue box. Apparently, this problem of self-extinguishing operation (aka 'quiescence') has not been solved. I have some technical information to share on that subject, for a later post. Rossi claims that this has been solved (in principle with better controls) but... is that more Rossi-speak? Apparently the customer is willing to buy several more if the problem of quiescence can be solved, but has written-off the cost of this one, if it cannot be fixed. There will be no refund, but there is no animosity. The BBB apparently had to be sent back to Bologna, instead of fixed in situ since as you know, Rossi installed some kind of anti-tamper device to keep it from being analyzed. On the positive side, the device does produce massive excess heat for periods up to a day, maybe more. There is a bona fide and massive thermal anomaly, but this unit should not have gone out the door until it was further along in development. Personally, I think it could take several years to engineer a commercial product, and that DGT could easily get there ahead of Rossi, since they are better staffed and funded (apparently due to saving the ~100,000,000 Euros that they were able to legally keep when AR could not perform up to the terms of the contract). As for the identity of the customer, it is kind of a don't ask, don't tell since taxpayer money is apparently involved and even AR's detractors (insiders) believe the technology is valid and do not want outside interference. Yet this will probably come out soon. Rossi has mentioned the N-word before. Another clue is that the report - which others on vortex know about, apparently comes out of Brussels. A hint: there could be some kind of Payola involved. Use the Italian spelling. g -Original Message- From: Wolf Fischer Thanks for the info! Can you share some more information? If so: - Do you know, if works for a short time means that it actually delivers more energy than has been put in? How long is short? ;) - Is the customer waiting for a new and improved version or has he canceled all the contracts? attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jones, thank you very much for this long and interesting post! Although I don't really understand the Payola reference (and Google didn't help me here), I still think I know who you are referring to (I think, this customer that you are referring to, has been mentioned all along after the test in October because of the Colonel who was making the measurements). I don't want to be rude or anything, so if you don't want to or cant answer any more questions, I am absolutely fine with it. Of course, however, if you can (and want to) I would be very happy to ask you some further questions: Are there more problems with the BBB besides the quiescence? What about the sum of energy being generated? Does it produce 1MW? Is it a constant 1MW or is it varying? If it is varying, how much? If the BBB goes quite, is it easy to restart? Or does it need to cool down first? Or is there some other way of reseting it? Do you mean by come out soon that the buyer will go public with it? Thank you again! Wolf Wolf, The following is strong on opinion and weak on fact, for the obvious reason. Whenever you see the word apparently below, the factuality of the report cannot be verified. Several insiders know about this, and I am not an insider. You may remember that Defkalion backed out of the original deal with Rossi. However, the contract milestone called for a 48 hour run and apparently Rossi could not even provide 12 hours continuous. Ergo, they feel completely justified to blame AR for the split-up. IOW, Rossi reneged on the original contract and not DGT. That part is what DGT publicly stated, but regardless - the problem of 'quiescence' could not be overcome then, and it highlights the ongoing situation which is relevant to the future of BBB, the big blue box. Apparently, this problem of self-extinguishing operation (aka 'quiescence') has not been solved. I have some technical information to share on that subject, for a later post. Rossi claims that this has been solved (in principle with better controls) but... is that more Rossi-speak? Apparently the customer is willing to buy several more if the problem of quiescence can be solved, but has written-off the cost of this one, if it cannot be fixed. There will be no refund, but there is no animosity. The BBB apparently had to be sent back to Bologna, instead of fixed in situ since as you know, Rossi installed some kind of anti-tamper device to keep it from being analyzed. On the positive side, the device does produce massive excess heat for periods up to a day, maybe more. There is a bona fide and massive thermal anomaly, but this unit should not have gone out the door until it was further along in development. Personally, I think it could take several years to engineer a commercial product, and that DGT could easily get there ahead of Rossi, since they are better staffed and funded (apparently due to saving the ~100,000,000 Euros that they were able to legally keep when AR could not perform up to the terms of the contract). As for the identity of the customer, it is kind of a don't ask, don't tell since taxpayer money is apparently involved and even AR's detractors (insiders) believe the technology is valid and do not want outside interference. Yet this will probably come out soon. Rossi has mentioned the N-word before. Another clue is that the report - which others on vortex know about, apparently comes out of Brussels. A hint: there could be some kind of Payola involved. Use the Italian spelling.g -Original Message- From: Wolf Fischer Thanks for the info! Can you share some more information? If so: - Do you know, if works for a short time means that it actually delivers more energy than has been put in? How long is short? ;) - Is the customer waiting for a new and improved version or has he canceled all the contracts?
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Apparently, this problem of self-extinguishing operation (aka 'quiescence') has not been solved. I have some technical information to share on that subject, for a later post. McKubre has stated that quiescence also occurs in Pd/D reactions which tends to lead one to the conclusion that the reaction sites are somehow altered. It sounds like the knife edge is dulled and needs to be resharpened. I suspect that in the Ni/H reaction the surface area is reduced by a melting and smoothing action in the nanopowder. T
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
Terry, Yes, McKubre's suggested site alteration is the most likely reason that so many LENR experiments, going back decades, seem to be unreliable, even when identical experiment works well - at other times. Do you by any chance have a citation for McKubre's observations? There are two other explanations (beside the site degradation) that are of particular interest. One is probability alteration based on quantum entanglement and probability fields. IOW entanglement is lost for the entire volume of local space, periodically, and this negatively affect tunneling and other QM reactions. The other is ZPE depletion in the sense of a spatial alteration of net amount of surplus vacuum energy. This assumes that although vacuum energy is always high, only a proportion of that which is surplus, or usable. In fact a third explanation comes to mind - as I am typing this, which is based on a new factor that only applies to Ni-H (average hydrogen non-quark mass depletion). More later, Jones -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Apparently, this problem of self-extinguishing operation (aka 'quiescence') has not been solved. I have some technical information to share on that subject, for a later post. McKubre has stated that quiescence also occurs in Pd/D reactions which tends to lead one to the conclusion that the reaction sites are somehow altered. It sounds like the knife edge is dulled and needs to be re-sharpened. I suspect that in the Ni/H reaction the surface area is reduced by a melting and smoothing action in the nanopowder. T attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry, Yes, McKubre's suggested site alteration is the most likely reason that so many LENR experiments, going back decades, seem to be unreliable, even when identical experiment works well - at other times. Do you by any chance have a citation for McKubre's observations? Yes, he discussed it in his presentation in this series of vids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc It was probably in number 3 or 4 of the 8 videos. Rossi is discussed in #6. T
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry, Yes, McKubre's suggested site alteration is the most likely reason that so many LENR experiments, going back decades, seem to be unreliable, even when identical experiment works well - at other times. Do you by any chance have a citation for McKubre's observations? Here it is at about 8:30 into #4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XN52jXl78feature=related In #3 he speaks of how the excess heat is maximized by breathing the D into and out of the cathode, ie varying the loading. In #4, he says the Pd becomes constipated and no longer allows the cathode to breathe. He also speaks on rejuvenation of cathodes. T
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
Two other details worth casual comment from this video. Of course, the focus is on Pd-D back in the day when SRI was active in actual RD instead of posturing; yet they essentially ignored Ni-H ... plus the Pd was bulk material or foils - not nanopowder. But in terms of loading time vs. active particle size, the several hundred hours needed for success with Pd-D at SRI (up to 900+) could drop to less than a few minutes with Ni-H, and that seems fairly consistent with the gain in surface area using nano. Retrospect is 20/20 as we know. Too bad SRI did not use nano, back in the day when it would have made a big difference in perception by the mainstream. In retrospect, SRI had modest success, but was never on the cutting edge, were they? A cynic might say their efforts almost look like they were intentionally dumbed down. The other curiosity is the story of the one little Italian guy in Rome who could always make active Pd cathodes... Hmmm... Did not our beloved AR have a similar story ... about one little Italian guy, who is the only one who can make his active nanometric material? Were the two dwarfs related? Or is this some kind of odd coincidence, or floating meme? Maybe these magical fellows were of the infamous seven, and Ing Rossi is yet another. Not sure if he is Cucciolo or Brontolo ... g -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton Yes, McKubre's suggested site alteration is the most likely reason that so many LENR experiments, going back decades, seem to be unreliable, even when identical experiment works well - at other times. Do you by any chance have a citation for McKubre's observations? Here it is at about 8:30 into #4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_XN52jXl78feature=related In #3 he speaks of how the excess heat is maximized by breathing the D into and out of the cathode, ie varying the loading. In #4, he says the Pd becomes constipated and no longer allows the cathode to breathe. He also speaks on rejuvenation of cathodes. T attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Of course, the focus is on Pd-D back in the day when SRI was active in actual RD instead of posturing; yet they essentially ignored Ni-H ... They did not ignore Ni-H. Srinivasan was there for months trying to replicate, and they worked with Patterson. They are not posturing now. That is snide and false. Too bad SRI did not use nano, back in the day when it would have made a big difference in perception by the mainstream. SRI worked closely with Arata on nanoparticle Pd, and replicated him. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
From: Jed Rothwell Of course, the focus is on Pd-D back in the day when SRI was active in actual RD instead of posturing; yet they essentially ignored Ni-H ... They did not ignore Ni-H. Srinivasan was there for months trying to replicate, and they worked with Patterson. They are not posturing now. That is snide and false. No it isn't. I repeat SRI did not work with Ni-H gas phase. Ni-H2O is NOT the same as Ni-H and the dynamics are very different. Srinivasan worked with water electrolysis only, AFAIK. That is my understanding, if you know he did work with Ni-H gas phase then please give the citation. Otherwise. It would help every if you would get your facts straight. Too bad SRI did not use nano, back in the day when it would have made a big difference in perception by the mainstream. SRI worked closely with Arata on nanoparticle Pd, and replicated him. Again - that was NOT back in the day when glowing success from a well-respected lab would have made a huge difference in perceptions. Please get you facts straight before these kinds of erroneous remarks. Jones
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
So you know the name of Rossi's first customer? Which is? AG On 1/15/2012 3:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote: No, I am not an employee of the customer, but it is a rather large group... ... ever heard of any large group keeping a secret secure, once too many tongue-waggers know about it? People talk.
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: No it isn’t. I repeat SRI did not work with Ni-H gas phase. Ni-H2O is NOT the same as Ni-H and the dynamics are very different. No on was working on gas phase Ni-H in those days. It hadn't occurred to anyone to do it. The problem is that there are hundreds of potential variations, and you never know which is promising. Srinivasan did what seemed most likely to work. He did what Mills and others claimed was working. It never did. SRI worked closely with Arata on nanoparticle Pd, and replicated him. ** ** Again – that was NOT back in the day when glowing success from a well-respected lab would have made a huge difference in perceptions. What day was that? They did the experiment as soon as they could get cooperation from Arata. It was a glowing success. SRI is a well-respected lab. It isn't their fault that the mass media ignored them. They also replicated Case's gas loaded experiment. Again, they did that soon after Case emerged. They wasted no time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Interesting info. So you are confirming Rossi DID ship the 1 MW reactor to his customer. That it did not work over extended periods is to be expected with new technology. If this has happened it says 2 things: Rossi did ship the reactor to his customer. Excellent news The reactor did work but not as the customer expected. Also excellent news as it does work. Rossi is working to rectify any issues. Again excellent news as Rossi is working to meet the customers needs. So the customer is real, the device works but not as reliably as the customer expects and Rossi is working with NI to meet the customer's expectations. This is a real world result. This is an excellent result. This is product development in the flesh. So Mr. Beene now that you have started talking, who is the customer? AG On 1/15/2012 2:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna.
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
I mean NO ONE was working on gas phase Ni-H in those days. Or nanoparticle Ni. As far as I know, no one was. Perhaps Rossi was, while keeping a low profile. Many variations that seemed promising back then, and some still do. They include nanoparticles, nanoparticles in various suspensions such as aerogel, glow discharge, the mysterious 1930s reactions with carbon the Mizuno has been replicating, Liaw's molten salts, bulk materials with various stimulation techniques, and various combinations and permutations. At any time in the history of cold fusion, there have enough promising approaches to keep a hundred major laboratories fully occupied. We have never been short of promising experiments, but always woefully short of people, equipment and funding. For all anyone knows, some of the other unexplored techniques may be much better than Rossi's. Mizuno may have discovered or rediscovered three methods superior to Rossi's. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
From: Jed Rothwell No it isn't. I repeat SRI did not work with Ni-H gas phase. Ni-H2O is NOT the same as Ni-H and the dynamics are very different. JR: No one was working on gas phase Ni-H in those days. Wrong again. The Thermacore Ni-H gas phase report had been out by the time Srinivasan came to SRI. Had he, or anyone else at SRI done a minimal survey of the available literature in the field, they would have clearly seen that this experiment was by far the most robust energy gain seen with either palladium or nickel, up to that time. JR: It hadn't occurred to anyone to do it. Only if they could not read the available literature. JR: Srinivasan did what seemed most likely to work. He did what Mills and others claimed was working. It never did. Doubly wrong. Srinivasan did have minor success with light water electrolysis ! Do you not even read the papers before you comment? True it was not a glowing success, but he should have started out to duplicate the Thermacore gas phase - which is the early 1990s was seeing more heat from Ni-H than Rossi gets today, based on the criterion of heat per unit of nickel surface area. JR: What day was that? They did the experiment as soon as they could get cooperation from Arata. By the mid 1990s the opinions of most physicists had already been made up. LENR was pathological science. What SRI did later was too little, too late. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Hi AG, Jones gave a lot of hints in his answer to my questions 4:30 hours earlier. The customers name seems to start with N, is an organization in Brussel, Rossi also once mentioned the name in the context of the 28th october 1MW test while talking about the Colonel (my guess, the name has four letters and ends with O ;)). Wolf Interesting info. So you are confirming Rossi DID ship the 1 MW reactor to his customer. That it did not work over extended periods is to be expected with new technology. If this has happened it says 2 things: Rossi did ship the reactor to his customer. Excellent news The reactor did work but not as the customer expected. Also excellent news as it does work. Rossi is working to rectify any issues. Again excellent news as Rossi is working to meet the customers needs. So the customer is real, the device works but not as reliably as the customer expects and Rossi is working with NI to meet the customer's expectations. This is a real world result. This is an excellent result. This is product development in the flesh. So Mr. Beene now that you have started talking, who is the customer? AG On 1/15/2012 2:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna.
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
From: Jed Rothwell JR: Srinivasan did what seemed most likely to work. He did what Mills and others claimed was working. It never did. I hate to quote Krivit on this, but he has considered this research recently: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3620review.shtml Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Wrong again. The Thermacore Ni-H gas phase report had been out by the time Srinivasan came to SRI. Srinivasan discussed this with everyone doing Ni work at the time, including the people at Thermocore, I believe. He followed their advice. Doubly wrong. Srinivasan did have minor success with light water electrolysis ! He told me he did not succeed. He thinks the heat was insignificant. By the mid 1990s the opinions of most physicists had already been made up. LENR was pathological science. What SRI did later was too little, too late. How could they have done it earlier? Arata and Mills did not emerge until the mid-1990s. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Wolf, Rossi has stated the customer is a US organization engaged in military research, the first 1 MW plant was at the customers site in the US and that he and others have attended to install the plant. Later he stated, he, the customer's engineer and NI are working on the advanced control system and they have made excellent progress. AG On 1/15/2012 9:17 AM, Wolf Fischer wrote: Hi AG, Jones gave a lot of hints in his answer to my questions 4:30 hours earlier. The customers name seems to start with N, is an organization in Brussel, Rossi also once mentioned the name in the context of the 28th october 1MW test while talking about the Colonel (my guess, the name has four letters and ends with O ;)). Wolf Interesting info. So you are confirming Rossi DID ship the 1 MW reactor to his customer. That it did not work over extended periods is to be expected with new technology. If this has happened it says 2 things: Rossi did ship the reactor to his customer. Excellent news The reactor did work but not as the customer expected. Also excellent news as it does work. Rossi is working to rectify any issues. Again excellent news as Rossi is working to meet the customers needs. So the customer is real, the device works but not as reliably as the customer expects and Rossi is working with NI to meet the customer's expectations. This is a real world result. This is an excellent result. This is product development in the flesh. So Mr. Beene now that you have started talking, who is the customer? AG On 1/15/2012 2:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna.
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I hate to quote Krivit on this, but he has considered this research recently: http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3620review.shtml This quotes TR-107843-V1, June 1998, pdf page numbers 363-375. Excerpt: Out of 22 cells in which calorimetry was carried out, 10 cells appeared to indicate some apparent 'excess power' with respect to (V-1.482)*I. I later asked Srinivasan what his final conclusion was. He said the results were marginal, or insignificant. He does not have confidence in them. He worked his butt off on this. He was disappointed but, but honest in admitting that it was a failure. I could ask him again, but that was his final conclusion some years ago. There was a glimmer of success, as noted. A highly optimistic person might have concluded it worked a little. There have been many marginal results in cold fusion that an optimist might take as positive. Srinivasan, McKubre, Storms, Fleischmann and most others in this field are not optimists. They are realists. They do not accept a result unless the s/n ratio is high. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Wolf Fischer wolffisc...@gmx.de wrote: Hi AG, Jones gave a lot of hints in his answer to my questions 4:30 hours earlier. The customers name seems to start with N, is an organization in Brussel, Rossi also once mentioned the name in the context of the 28th october 1MW test while talking about the Colonel (my guess, the name has four letters and ends with O ;)). If anyone has the slightest evidence that the Colonel works for NATO, that NATO is a customer of Rossi or that Rossi even *has* a customer other than himself, could you please provide it? If you have conclusive evidence, even better. Then I could stop trying to slightly correct the torrent of obvious misinformation, misdirection and outright error which gets posted here so much.
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
From: Jed Rothwell JB: Doubly wrong. Srinivasan did have minor success with light water electrolysis ! JR: He told me he did not succeed. He thinks the heat was insignificant. Is any gain (any gain that ostensibly violates conservation of energy) really insignificant? Is COP = 1.2 insignificant? I don't think so. Not to put word in his mouth, or your memory, but I suspect that what he told you was he could not be sure the gain did not come from recombination effects. By the mid 1990s the opinions of most physicists had already been made up. LENR was pathological science. What SRI did later was too little, too late. JR: How could they have done it earlier? Arata and Mills did not emerge until the mid-1990s. Mills was publishing in 1990, and Thermacore has started work on their project for DARPA that same year. Mills first paper in Fusion Technology was 1991 IIRC. Jones
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
AG, I am just repeating what Jones Beene has posted (look at his post and what he said there). Perhaps I misunderstood him. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg61115.html His reference to payola and its italian wording could mean Giampaolo Di Paola, the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. But yes, I also know Rossis statements... We will see, hopefully soon... Wolf Wolf, Rossi has stated the customer is a US organization engaged in military research, the first 1 MW plant was at the customers site in the US and that he and others have attended to install the plant. Later he stated, he, the customer's engineer and NI are working on the advanced control system and they have made excellent progress. AG On 1/15/2012 9:17 AM, Wolf Fischer wrote: Hi AG, Jones gave a lot of hints in his answer to my questions 4:30 hours earlier. The customers name seems to start with N, is an organization in Brussel, Rossi also once mentioned the name in the context of the 28th october 1MW test while talking about the Colonel (my guess, the name has four letters and ends with O ;)). Wolf Interesting info. So you are confirming Rossi DID ship the 1 MW reactor to his customer. That it did not work over extended periods is to be expected with new technology. If this has happened it says 2 things: Rossi did ship the reactor to his customer. Excellent news The reactor did work but not as the customer expected. Also excellent news as it does work. Rossi is working to rectify any issues. Again excellent news as Rossi is working to meet the customers needs. So the customer is real, the device works but not as reliably as the customer expects and Rossi is working with NI to meet the customer's expectations. This is a real world result. This is an excellent result. This is product development in the flesh. So Mr. Beene now that you have started talking, who is the customer? AG On 1/15/2012 2:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna.
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Mary you need to direct this to Jones Beene who claims to have the inside information that the customer is real, did receive the plant and that it worked but not as long as the customer expected. Even you would have to admit this is good information and what one would expect from a first off the rack, real world device. AG On 1/15/2012 9:31 AM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Wolf Fischer wolffisc...@gmx.de mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de wrote: Hi AG, Jones gave a lot of hints in his answer to my questions 4:30 hours earlier. The customers name seems to start with N, is an organization in Brussel, Rossi also once mentioned the name in the context of the 28th october 1MW test while talking about the Colonel (my guess, the name has four letters and ends with O ;)). If anyone has the slightest evidence that the Colonel works for NATO, that NATO is a customer of Rossi or that Rossi even *has* a customer other than himself, could you please provide it? If you have conclusive evidence, even better. Then I could stop trying to slightly correct the torrent of obvious misinformation, misdirection and outright error which gets posted here so much.
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Not to put word in his mouth, or your memory, but I suspect that what he told you was he could not be sure the gain did not come from recombination effects. He meant the calorimetry was not accurate enough to ensure the results were above recombination. I agree with his conclusion. I spent a lot of time looking at data from that kind of calorimetry, which Mallove was also doing, in cooperation with Srinivasan. JR: How could they have done it earlier? Arata and Mills did not emerge until the mid-1990s. ** ** Mills was publishing in 1990, and Thermacore has started work on their project for DARPA that same year. ** ** Mills first paper in *Fusion Technology* was 1991 IIRC. SRI's publication quoted by Krivit makes it clear they were keeping track of the research. They were stretched thin and could not try every promising technique. They wasted no time. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
-Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Mary you need to direct this to Jones Beene who claims to have the inside information ... AG: I could not make it any clearer in the prior post that I am not a Rossi insider. OTOH - AG - you have consistently said that you talk to AR often (3 times per day ?) and that you are an insider. So AG - on the next call to AR - ask him directly - will be fixing the failed first reactor in Bologna, or at the customer's location? He will not disclose the name of the customer, and I cannot confirm it. End of story. For today, anyway. Jones
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jones, I haven't spoken to Andrea for some time, waiting on the specs of the high temp plant before we get into contracts. I have emailed him about your comments. AG On 1/15/2012 9:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Mary you need to direct this to Jones Beene who claims to have the inside information ... AG: I could not make it any clearer in the prior post that I am not a Rossi insider. OTOH - AG - you have consistently said that you talk to AR often (3 times per day ?) and that you are an insider. So AG - on the next call to AR - ask him directly - will be fixing the failed first reactor in Bologna, or at the customer's location? He will not disclose the name of the customer, and I cannot confirm it. End of story. For today, anyway. Jones
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
The SRI paper also discusses the Ni-H work of Notoya, Ohmori, Noninski and Bush. I worked closely with all of those people. I paid several thousand dollars of my own money for some of their work. I have lots of data from them. I know a great deal about their calorimetry. I am not confident that they got positive results. I have no confidence in the calorimetry of the latter two in particular. I agree with McKubre and Srinivasan's take on this. They did not dismiss Ni-H and neither did I, but it was far from convincing. It was puzzling. McKubre and Srinivasan did everything they could. They did as good a job as anyone did back then. Armchair critics who claim they were posturing are out of line. People who have not done experiments -- or paid for experiments -- have no notion of hard this is, or what a risk it is. Cold fusion is much harder than it looks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jones, What failed reactor? You claim to have a report that it produces massive amounts of excess heat. So it works. All I see in your report is there is a control issue and that Rossi, the customers engineer and NI are working to fix it. This is new and leading edge technology. Would I expect a 1 MW plant I buy from Rossi to work like it was a plant that was the result of 10 years of RD? No way. Would I expect it to demonstrate a very positive excess heat signature? Yes. Would I be willing to work with Rossi and NI to obtain better control? Of course. To me you have just confirmed everything I believed to be true and have cleared away any doubts I may have had. For that I thank you. Why you put a negative spin on this is beyond me? It is the best news you could have reported. IT WORKS! Have you never worked with a lead edge product before? You do know that the leading edge is also called the bleeding edge and for very good reasons. AG On 1/15/2012 9:45 AM, Jones Beene wrote: -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Mary you need to direct this to Jones Beene who claims to have the inside information ... AG: I could not make it any clearer in the prior post that I am not a Rossi insider. OTOH - AG - you have consistently said that you talk to AR often (3 times per day ?) and that you are an insider. So AG - on the next call to AR - ask him directly - will be fixing the failed first reactor in Bologna, or at the customer's location? He will not disclose the name of the customer, and I cannot confirm it. End of story. For today, anyway. Jones
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Jed, Yup. Learning that the hard way. But it does WORK. AG On 1/15/2012 10:01 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Cold fusion is much harder than it looks.
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
From: Jed Rothwell * SRI's publication quoted by Krivit makes it clear they were keeping track of the research. They were stretched thin and could not try every promising technique. They wasted no time. Haste makes waste. Yet, they should have taken full notice of what Thermacore had accomplished years earlier, as stated in the Gernert paper on the LENR site. ONE DID NOT NEED NANOPOWDER FOR THIS, only a careful evaluation of the state of the art at that time. For heaven's sake, Thermacore's patent had already issued - not just filed but issued - long before Srinivasan even arrived on the scene. He or someone else was negligent in not pursuing the most robust results that were easily attainable at that time - hydrogen gas phase. If he declined because of the patent - that could be relevant, but it is not in the record. Yes, I know that hindsight is 20/20 but why is Rothwell trying to rewrite the history of this episode ? It is clear in that SRI dropped the ball on several occasions, and not just this one. We should probably admit that, forgive them, and move on to the present. However, I am not convinced they are making amends. I hope they have an active program Lab going on now - since the Ahern contract is over, and it was miserly at best - but I suspect that, regrettably, all available funds are going to 'other things' besides RD. You may not like the term 'posturing' for those 'other things', and First Class flights are expensive these day - and we do need conferences, and videos, and so on to educate the masses - but this is clearly not RD by an outfit whose mission should be Lab RD. Or have they morphed into PR? They still have Research in the name. Maybe it should be SPRI? My rant for today, held over from Friday the 13th. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Why you put a negative spin on this is beyond me? It is the best news you could have reported. IT WORKS! The concern is, at least for me, is why the reactor goes quiescent. McKubre says that once his Pd/D cathodes went quiescent they could only be revived by an acid bath. He notes some type of pollutant in the surface of the cathode. I have speculated that the Ni/H reactor goes quiescent due to a loss in surface area. Hopefully, this is not the case since it would essentially require replacement of the nanopowder. But, I'm sure the Customer would have tried to restart the reactor. If it won't restart, then it is likely the powder needs replacing. T
RE: [Vo]:1MW delay
-Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Why you put a negative spin on this is beyond me? It is the best news you could have reported. IT WORKS! Works, yes ... for a short time. But is it cost effective? - not on this planet. Will it make a dent in fossil fuel use? - not on this planet, at least not as it stands now. Let's be clear, I want to see this technology, Ni-H, succeed more than anyone and by anyone, but I am not a shill for AR, and I hope you are not. He may have succeeded in raising the level of consciousness that Ni-H works, but the invention goes back to Thermacore, and whether Rossi can take that through to fulfillment is in doubt. What is the real value of a $2 million device, or a $2000 device, that works for 24 hours, produces about $1000 worth of heat and then goes quiescent? Answer - negative economic value, since you have to ship it back. That is where we are on January 14, 2012 - like it or not: negative economic value. That is the reason for what you call a negative spin. Otherwise it is known as reality. E-Cat should never have been announced prematurely. This October surprise was a gigantic boondoggle that OPEC or the other enemies of LENR could not have orchestrated better. Yes, the good news is that there is short term energy anomaly. Can it be perfected to have positive economic value? Who knows, but it is not likely that it can be advanced by AR. He has made more enemies in the mainstream than has Santilli, so he is not likely to get much help without paying out the nose, which he will not do. DGT - in contrast - is in a good position. If you really want to use the technology in Oz, my advice is to jump ship, ditch AR and get onboard the Maru DGT, or any other Ni-H vehicle, before it leaves port. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Why you put a negative spin on this is beyond me? It is the best news you could have reported. IT WORKS! Works, yes ... for a short time. But is it cost effective? - not on this planet. Will it make a dent in fossil fuel use? - not on this planet, at least not as it stands now. Let's be clear, I want to see this technology, Ni-H, succeed more than anyone and by anyone, but I am not a shill for AR, and I hope you are not. He may have succeeded in raising the level of consciousness that Ni-H works, but the invention goes back to Thermacore, and whether Rossi can take that through to fulfillment is in doubt. What is the real value of a $2 million device, or a $2000 device, that works for 24 hours, produces about $1000 worth of heat and then goes quiescent? Rossi's (and Defkalion's) claims were always that their devices run unattended for a minimum of six months without refueling or other attention. In fact Rossi repeatedly said they run much longer but that he would prefer the six month interval for safety reasons until he got to know how they age in the field. If that was a lie, what else do you think Rossi lied about? If he lied about that, why believe anything he said?
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Mary spin it anyway you try, you were wrong. Rossi does have a customer, he did ship the plant, it does work and produce excess heat, there are control issues, so what, you expect there would not be control issues. They will be fixed. Main point is Mary your original analysis and statement about the 1 MW plant were 100% incorrect. Care to do better now? AG On 1/15/2012 12:05 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net mailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Why you put a negative spin on this is beyond me? It is the best news you could have reported. IT WORKS! Works, yes ... for a short time. But is it cost effective? - not on this planet. Will it make a dent in fossil fuel use? - not on this planet, at least not as it stands now. Let's be clear, I want to see this technology, Ni-H, succeed more than anyone and by anyone, but I am not a shill for AR, and I hope you are not. He may have succeeded in raising the level of consciousness that Ni-H works, but the invention goes back to Thermacore, and whether Rossi can take that through to fulfillment is in doubt. What is the real value of a $2 million device, or a $2000 device, that works for 24 hours, produces about $1000 worth of heat and then goes quiescent? Rossi's (and Defkalion's) claims were always that their devices run unattended for a minimum of six months without refueling or other attention. In fact Rossi repeatedly said they run much longer but that he would prefer the six month interval for safety reasons until he got to know how they age in the field. If that was a lie, what else do you think Rossi lied about? If he lied about that, why believe anything he said?
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Mary, Spin it anyway you try, you were wrong. Rossi does have a customer, he did ship the plant, it does work and produce excess heat, there are control issues, so what, you expect there would not be control issues. They will be fixed. Main point is Mary your original analysis and statement about the 1 MW plant were 100% incorrect. Care to do better now? AG On 1/15/2012 12:05 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net mailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat Why you put a negative spin on this is beyond me? It is the best news you could have reported. IT WORKS! Works, yes ... for a short time. But is it cost effective? - not on this planet. Will it make a dent in fossil fuel use? - not on this planet, at least not as it stands now. Let's be clear, I want to see this technology, Ni-H, succeed more than anyone and by anyone, but I am not a shill for AR, and I hope you are not. He may have succeeded in raising the level of consciousness that Ni-H works, but the invention goes back to Thermacore, and whether Rossi can take that through to fulfillment is in doubt. What is the real value of a $2 million device, or a $2000 device, that works for 24 hours, produces about $1000 worth of heat and then goes quiescent? Rossi's (and Defkalion's) claims were always that their devices run unattended for a minimum of six months without refueling or other attention. In fact Rossi repeatedly said they run much longer but that he would prefer the six month interval for safety reasons until he got to know how they age in the field. If that was a lie, what else do you think Rossi lied about? If he lied about that, why believe anything he said?
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: Mary spin it anyway you try, you were wrong. Rossi does have a customer, he did ship the plant, it does work and produce excess heat, there are control issues, so what, you expect there would not be control issues. They will be fixed. Main point is Mary your original analysis and statement about the 1 MW plant were 100% incorrect. Care to do better now? I'd be happy but what evidence other than what Rossi says would I base doing better on? How in the world can you know whether or not he's telling the truth?
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Mary, As for what I believe, well I have done my homework. I'm ready to buy a 1 MW high temp plant that we can link to a 350 kW steam turbine with all the tricky bits to make it as efficient as we can. Rossi knows it and he knows how I will test it. He requested me to wait until he had finished the high temp version. So I'm waiting. While our first plant may not be cost effective, we know the future price will generate Ac MWhs at less than any other energy source can achieve. I may tear my hair out and get very frustrated, playing with the initial control systems but that is part of the cost of dealing with and being involved with leading edge technology. You seem to be not willing to accept this is real until it works as well as say an iPad does. If you wait until then, the market is owned by those that went before and did not need to be 100.% certain it was real. It's real. It has control issues. Those control issues are what engineers, engineering hours and money fix. AG On 1/15/2012 1:05 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Mary spin it anyway you try, you were wrong. Rossi does have a customer, he did ship the plant, it does work and produce excess heat, there are control issues, so what, you expect there would not be control issues. They will be fixed. Main point is Mary your original analysis and statement about the 1 MW plant were 100% incorrect. Care to do better now? I'd be happy but what evidence other than what Rossi says would I base doing better on? How in the world can you know whether or not he's telling the truth?
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
Another guess...If it is a military organization, based in (North) America and starts with the letter N, maybe its NORAD. NORAD could use a LENR power plant to power their underground bunkers. Harry On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Wolf Fischer wolffisc...@gmx.de wrote: AG, I am just repeating what Jones Beene has posted (look at his post and what he said there). Perhaps I misunderstood him. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg61115.html His reference to payola and its italian wording could mean Giampaolo Di Paola, the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. But yes, I also know Rossis statements... We will see, hopefully soon... Wolf Wolf, Rossi has stated the customer is a US organization engaged in military research, the first 1 MW plant was at the customers site in the US and that he and others have attended to install the plant. Later he stated, he, the customer's engineer and NI are working on the advanced control system and they have made excellent progress. AG On 1/15/2012 9:17 AM, Wolf Fischer wrote: Hi AG, Jones gave a lot of hints in his answer to my questions 4:30 hours earlier. The customers name seems to start with N, is an organization in Brussel, Rossi also once mentioned the name in the context of the 28th october 1MW test while talking about the Colonel (my guess, the name has four letters and ends with O ;)). Wolf Interesting info. So you are confirming Rossi DID ship the 1 MW reactor to his customer. That it did not work over extended periods is to be expected with new technology. If this has happened it says 2 things: Rossi did ship the reactor to his customer. Excellent news The reactor did work but not as the customer expected. Also excellent news as it does work. Rossi is working to rectify any issues. Again excellent news as Rossi is working to meet the customers needs. So the customer is real, the device works but not as reliably as the customer expects and Rossi is working with NI to meet the customer's expectations. This is a real world result. This is an excellent result. This is product development in the flesh. So Mr. Beene now that you have started talking, who is the customer? AG On 1/15/2012 2:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Why read something else into this? LOL. You must be joking. Because Rossi spoke it, for one thing - and because it is misleading for another, just short of complete dishonesty. You should know this, AG - if you talk to Rossi as much as you claim; and if he is being straight with you. Rossi did deliver, yes, but the customer has sent it back. Rossi's spin: we will add controls. Only Rossi has NOT even admitted that it has been returned. That would sound too much like failure. Customers complaint: *did not work over extended periods*, so of no value for intended use, despite the fact that it does work for short periods. Thus we sent it back to Bologna.
[Vo]:1MW delay
January 13th, 2012 at 5:51 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=15#comment-169415 The 1 MW Customer is not yet working with the 1 MW plant, because we are still completing the control systems with National Instruments. (Response from MY in 5,4,3.. ) (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
Re: [Vo]:1MW delay
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: January 13th, 2012 at 5:51 PM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=15#comment-169415 The 1 MW Customer is not yet working with the 1 MW plant, because we are still completing the control systems with National Instruments. I wonder how he is running financially. Not a single eCat delivered to date; but, already pricing mega eCats for the future. No wonder the skeptics are skeptical. T
