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]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
On 01/11/2012 11:28 PM, James Bowery wrote: The only way to get capitalism to work is to shift the tax base from economic activity to the liquidation value of assets, and set the tax rate to the interest rate used to calculate liquidation value. But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen. So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be made to work. This is not to say that socialism can be made to work, since in order to do so it would require that the liquidation asset interest collected by the government be dispersed equally to all citizens, no means testing. Socialists want to figure out how to spend your dividends for you because they're so smart and all. In other words: All fall down. Maybe the solution is what Fidel Castro proposed recently: replace the US president with a robot. http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/?El-mejor-Presidente-para-Estadoslang=es http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/?El-mejor-Presidente-para-Estadoslang=es In spanish. Translation here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/%3FEl-mejor-Presidente-para-Estados%26lang%3Dessl=estl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/%3FEl-mejor-Presidente-para-Estados%26lang%3Dessl=estl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 I (along with Castro) am being sarcastic here, of course. But nevertheless, the rationale behind Catro's idea is impeccable: given that the western world is so advanced at the technological level, perhaphs it should consider using that wonderful advancement to try to advance also at the social, political and economical levels, where it's clearly lagging behind the curve. In fact, technological advances are usually being used to even recede in those areas. The troubles with political and economical systems do not lie necessarily in the systems per se, but in people. As long as people refuse to look into their inner dark areas, to consider their evil within, so to speak, nothing will change. We have come to a point when we're talking about the benefits of nanotechnology, artifical intelligence, robotics and free energy, and at the same time threathening to use that knowledge to attempt to destroy the world. It's insane, and it's because people usually don't look (and take a part of the responsibility) for the contradiction. My 1992 white paper http://mysite.verizon.net/res10kjcq/ota/others-papers/NetAssetTax_Bowery.txt introduces an early version of the idea. The impetus for it came from my work to privatize government technology development programs in space http://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htm and energy http://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html. Charles Murray of the CATO Institute later wrote a book on an idea related to the citizen's dividend http://www.aei.org/press/society-and-culture/poverty/in-our-hands-press/. And, yes, this problem has been known well over a century. On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com mailto:thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote: I am all for vertical agriculture, but I am totally opposed to a global basic income. I do not support socialism or communism. Socialism, communism and capitalism are all based on ordinary people trading labor for money. In a few decades human labor will be worth nothing. All economic systems will be obsolete. See: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ With cold fusion technology, the price of everything will go down. Even a job at McDonalds will be capable of paying for a nice house, nice cars, etc. Even today we have automobiles capable of driving in California traffic. That is a more difficult task than any job at McDonald's. It is just a matter of time before all jobs such as this will be done by robots. A robot the replaces a person (or the entire staff) will cost McDonald's a few thousand dollars a year. you cannot buy a nice house were nice cars with that kind of money. The most difficult job at McDonald's is human language: cashiers have to understand what the customers are ordering. Cashiers can easily be replaced today by having most customers enter the order by touchscreens, and pay with credit cards. This would be like the self checkout lines at grocery stores. In the near future, computers will understand speech well enough to take verbal orders. McDonald's has not installed touchscreen ordering devices for the same reason the US automobile industry did not install robots in the 1960s. The government and labor organizations are putting pressure on McDonald's not to automate. McDonald's is one of the biggest employers in the US. Walmart is another huge employer that could easily replace much of its staff with
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
I think the problem is not with Capitalism (you cannot find anything better or more realistic, it is with Moneytheism- the most popular and destructive religion today. Peter On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: ** On 01/11/2012 11:28 PM, James Bowery wrote: The only way to get capitalism to work is to shift the tax base from economic activity to the liquidation value of assets, and set the tax rate to the interest rate used to calculate liquidation value. But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen. So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be made to work. This is not to say that socialism can be made to work, since in order to do so it would require that the liquidation asset interest collected by the government be dispersed equally to all citizens, no means testing. Socialists want to figure out how to spend your dividends for you because they're so smart and all. In other words: All fall down. Maybe the solution is what Fidel Castro proposed recently: replace the US president with a robot. http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/?El-mejor-Presidente-para-Estadoslang=es In spanish. Translation here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.elcorreo.eu.org/%3FEl-mejor-Presidente-para-Estados%26lang%3Dessl=estl=enhl=ie=UTF-8 I (along with Castro) am being sarcastic here, of course. But nevertheless, the rationale behind Catro's idea is impeccable: given that the western world is so advanced at the technological level, perhaphs it should consider using that wonderful advancement to try to advance also at the social, political and economical levels, where it's clearly lagging behind the curve. In fact, technological advances are usually being used to even recede in those areas. The troubles with political and economical systems do not lie necessarily in the systems per se, but in people. As long as people refuse to look into their inner dark areas, to consider their evil within, so to speak, nothing will change. We have come to a point when we're talking about the benefits of nanotechnology, artifical intelligence, robotics and free energy, and at the same time threathening to use that knowledge to attempt to destroy the world. It's insane, and it's because people usually don't look (and take a part of the responsibility) for the contradiction. My 1992 white paperhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res10kjcq/ota/others-papers/NetAssetTax_Bowery.txt introduces an early version of the idea. The impetus for it came from my work to privatize government technology development programs in spacehttp://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htm and energy http://www.oocities.com/jim_bowery/BussardsLetter.html. Charles Murray of the CATO Institute later wrote a book on an idea related to the citizen's dividendhttp://www.aei.org/press/society-and-culture/poverty/in-our-hands-press/ . And, yes, this problem has been known well over a century. On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: noone noone thesteornpa...@yahoo.com wrote: I am all for vertical agriculture, but I am totally opposed to a global basic income. I do not support socialism or communism. Socialism, communism and capitalism are all based on ordinary people trading labor for money. In a few decades human labor will be worth nothing. All economic systems will be obsolete. See: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ With cold fusion technology, the price of everything will go down. Even a job at McDonalds will be capable of paying for a nice house, nice cars, etc. Even today we have automobiles capable of driving in California traffic. That is a more difficult task than any job at McDonald's. It is just a matter of time before all jobs such as this will be done by robots. A robot the replaces a person (or the entire staff) will cost McDonald's a few thousand dollars a year. you cannot buy a nice house were nice cars with that kind of money. The most difficult job at McDonald's is human language: cashiers have to understand what the customers are ordering. Cashiers can easily be replaced today by having most customers enter the order by touchscreens, and pay with credit cards. This would be like the self checkout lines at grocery stores. In the near future, computers will understand speech well enough to take verbal orders. McDonald's has not installed touchscreen ordering devices for the same reason the US automobile industry did not install robots in the 1960s. The government and labor organizations are putting pressure on McDonald's not to automate. McDonald's is one of the biggest employers in the US. Walmart is another huge employer that could easily replace much of its staff with robots. I'm sure that it will within 20 years. Robots capable of stocking shelves are already available. At
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
On 01/14/2012 09:21 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: I think the problem is not with Capitalism (you cannot find anything better or more realistic, it is with Moneytheism- the most popular and destructive religion today. I think the same. The problem is in the way money is taken as a value in itself, when it should be considered just a convenient form of replacement for other, real values. The way money is valued, that's where the real problem lies. In fact, we're in a really stupid state of affairs, come to look at it and understand how it really works. But unless people are willing to look at these things in the face, so to speak, without any kind of self delusion, caused by dwelling in cloudy and vague ideas(where they personal interests and ambitions also play a role, of course), nothing will really change. People should start to feel ashamed for being part of this state of affairs. That's what must happen first, and only then, real change will be possible. Best regards. I'm going out to the woods now(literally). Have a nice weekend, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: ** On 01/11/2012 11:28 PM, James Bowery wrote: The only way to get capitalism to work is to shift the tax base from economic activity to the liquidation value of assets, and set the tax rate to the interest rate used to calculate liquidation value. But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen. So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be made to work. This is not to say that socialism can be made to work, since in order to do so it would require that the liquidation asset interest collected by the government be dispersed equally to all citizens, no means testing. Socialists want to figure out how to spend your dividends for you because they're so smart and all. In other words: All fall down. given that the western world is so advanced at the technological level, perhaphs it should consider using that wonderful advancement to try to advance also at the social, political and economical levels, where it's clearly lagging behind the curve. You can't have advancement in science hence technology unless you can conduct controlled experiments to untangle correlation from causation. The only way to ethically conduct controlled experiments in the social sciences is to promote assortative migration forming experiments in human ecology under mutual consent. The best way to facilitate that assortative migration, and the associated territorial reallocation, is the citizen's dividend I described. Anything less that claims to do social engineering based on science is bullshit.
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
BRAVO. Well said by all. A bit off-topic, but with keen insight, which is hard to find these days, on-topic. -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy I think the same. The problem is in the way money is taken as a value in itself, when it should be considered just a convenient form of replacement for other, real values The way money is valued, that's where the real problem lies. Peter Gluck wrote: I think the problem is not with Capitalism - you cannot find anything better or more realistic, it is with Moneytheism- the most popular and destructive religion today. James Bowery wrote: The only way to get capitalism to work is to shift the tax base from economic activity to the liquidation value of assets, and set the tax rate to the interest rate used to calculate liquidation value. But no one with wealth wants that to happen even though just about everyone who has high incomes would want it to happen So, due to political economic considerations, capitalism cannot be made to work. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
We need to put down the guns. Every action taken by government, whether it's a new law, or some tax, is enforced by violence and the threat of violence. It's enforced at the point of a gun. We need to stop using guns to solve our social problems. Replace laws with voluntary agreements, and replace taxes with user fees. The difference is choice, and the way the rules are enforced. By allowing people to rule over us without a moral code, is the equivalent of throwing a loaded gun into a monkey cage. Put down the guns.
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
[Vo]:Rossi fails to call Dick Smith
See: More fizzer than fusion, so Dick's not energised http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/more-fizzer-than-fusion-so-dicks-not-energised-20120114-1q0fv.html What a screw up! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
From Mauro, . The problem is in the way money is taken as a value in itself, when it should be considered just a convenient form of replacement for other, real values. The way money is valued, that's where the real problem lies. In fact, we're in a really stupid state of affairs, come to look at it and understand how it really works. But unless people are willing to look at these things in the face, so to speak, without any kind of self delusion, caused by dwelling in cloudy and vague ideas(where they personal interests and ambitions also play a role, of course), nothing will really change. People should start to feel ashamed for being part of this state of affairs. That's what must happen first, and only then, real change will be possible. I couldn't agree more, Mauro. I've made similar arguments. I shall now rant in more detail. (You have been warned!) ;-) Initially money (or currency) was initially represented in the form of precious stones and metals. There was always a limited supply of gold ands ilver, so the intrinsic value was kept relatively stable throughout the ages. Back then, most forms of currency literally represented the intrinsic value of what it was constructed out of. People across the globe always had faith that pieces of gold silver would maintain its value, and they were right. However, in contemporary times, that has not been the case for quite a while, such as when the United States went off of the gold standard, and oh, what a bru ha-ha that caused! In place of the gold standard modern civilizations have attempted to maintain intrinsic value through a series of complicated policy controls. They also try to make the representation of currency extremely difficult to duplicate in order to discourage rampant counterfeiting which, if left unchecked, would dilute, or cause rampant inflation. Alas, the devil is in the details as to who actually controls the intrinsic value of contemporary currency - and there lies the rub. Whoever controls those knobs and dials assumes control of the world. In contemporary times, there seems to be an on-going battle for supremacy played out between federal governments versus big private businesses. Certain aspects of Big Businesses seem to believe that if they can accumulate as much currency as they can in their private piggy banks, by default, they will control the intrinsic value of currency. If enough of them accumulate the stuff they will end up making currency scarce. That means all the currency they have accumulated over the years is perceived as even MORE valuable. However, to maintain the illusion of scarcity, big businesses have to be assured that the federal government will not do something apocalyptic like print up additional currency and then hand out those notes to needy portions of the population via through various government sanctioned programs. That's where various forms of institutionalized bribery come into play with the objective of eliciting appropriate kinds of money policy behavior from governments. Likewise, it would seem that certain aspects of Big Government believe that if they can tax more individuals and private corporations that in turn will siphon off the ills of excess inflation-producing currency. By default that would also cause currency to become scarce, and more valued. I hasten to add however that I've never heard governments explain it in such terms. They would, in fact emphatically deny that THAT is what they are doing. However, by default, the more governments taxes, the less currency would be left in consumer corporate pockets to spend. By default, that means the remaining currency becomes even more valued. In theory, it would seem, taxation can also counter the effects of inflation. What seems to have been lost in the translation is the fact that both Businesses and Governments are essentially BUSINESSES. Both systems have devised varies ways and means of collecting currency from customers. In return they all attempt to provide useful products and services for their paying customers. Customers, in turn, must decide if they are getting their money's worth. When it comes to assessing the value products produced from private businesses, if you don't like what you bought don't buy from them anymore. Buy from a competitor. When it comes to assessing the value of government services, vote the senator (or president) out of office, and attempt to install another more agreeable puppet that will do what you want him to do for you. The only appreciable difference is the fact that the business known as the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can legally print up more currency (which, of course scares the BiJesus out of private corporations), whereas any other private or state business caught doing the same thing will be strung up by the short hairs. I suspect contemporary society will have to come to better terms with how we perceive the value of currency. IMHO, what has
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]:Rossi fails to call Dick Smith
The entrepreneur Dick Smith had offered to invest $200,000 if the physics was proven. He sent along a consulting aerospace engineer and sceptic, Ian Bryce, to assess the machine. This is the second time they wrote that and it's confusing. Did Bryce go to Italy? Or just to their town meeting or what?
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]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
Perhaps this document: Capitalism: Reject or Retool?: http://bigthink.com/ideas/41870: from INFORMAVORES SUNDAY No 490 can help you in this problem. Peter On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Mauro, ** ** … The problem is in the way money is taken as a value in itself, when it should be considered just a convenient form of replacement for other, real values. The way money is valued, that's where the real problem lies. In fact,*** * we're in a really stupid state of affairs, come to look at it and understand how it really works. But unless people are willing to look*** * at these things in the face, so to speak, without any kind of self delusion, caused by dwelling in cloudy and vague ideas(where they personal interests and ambitions also play a role, of course), nothing** ** will really change. People should start to feel ashamed for being part** ** of this state of affairs. That's what must happen first, and only then,* *** real change will be possible. ** ** I couldn't agree more, Mauro. ** ** I've made similar arguments. I shall now rant in more detail. (You have been warned!) ;-) ** ** Initially money (or currency) was initially represented in the form of precious stones and metals. There was always a limited supply of gold ands ilver, so the intrinsic value was kept relatively stable throughout the ages. Back then, most forms of currency literally represented the intrinsic value of what it was constructed out of. People across the globe always had faith that pieces of gold silver would maintain its value, and they were right. ** ** However, in contemporary times, that has not been the case for quite a while, such as when the United States went off of the gold standard, and oh, what a bru ha-ha that caused! In place of the gold standard modern civilizations have attempted to maintain intrinsic value through a series of complicated policy controls. They also try to make the representation of currency extremely difficult to duplicate in order to discourage rampant counterfeiting which, if left unchecked, would dilute, or cause rampant inflation. ** ** Alas, the devil is in the details as to who actually controls the intrinsic value of contemporary currency – and there lies the rub. Whoever controls those knobs and dials assumes control of the world. In contemporary times, there seems to be an on-going battle for supremacy played out between federal governments versus big private businesses. ** ** Certain aspects of Big Businesses seem to believe that if they can accumulate as much currency as they can in their private piggy banks, by default, they will control the intrinsic value of currency. If enough of them accumulate the stuff they will end up making currency scarce. That means all the currency they have accumulated over the years is perceived as even MORE valuable. However, to maintain the illusion of scarcity, big businesses have to be assured that the federal government will not do something apocalyptic like print up additional currency and then hand out those notes to needy portions of the population via through various government sanctioned programs. That's where various forms of institutionalized bribery come into play with the objective of eliciting appropriate kinds of money policy behavior from governments. ** ** Likewise, it would seem that certain aspects of Big Government believe that if they can tax more individuals and private corporations that in turn will siphon off the ills of excess inflation-producing currency. By default that would also cause currency to become scarce, and more valued. I hasten to add however that I've never heard governments explain it in such terms. They would, in fact emphatically deny that THAT is what they are doing. However, by default, the more governments taxes, the less currency would be left in consumer corporate pockets to spend. By default, that means the remaining currency becomes even more valued. In theory, it would seem, taxation can also counter the effects of inflation. ** ** What seems to have been lost in the translation is the fact that both Businesses and Governments are essentially BUSINESSES. Both systems have devised varies ways and means of collecting currency from customers. In return they all attempt to provide useful products and services for their paying customers. Customers, in turn, must decide if they are getting their money's worth. When it comes to assessing the value products produced from private businesses, if you don't like what you bought don't buy from them anymore. Buy from a competitor. When it comes to assessing the value of government services, vote the senator (or president) out of office, and attempt to install another more agreeable puppet that will do what you
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]:An overlooked 2011 patent for micron-scale crystal-based fusion
My questions were motivated by definition #4 in the patent which refers to deuterating the crystal, but it is clear (I think) from the context that this is still just as part of proposed small, conventional (hot) impact fusion - not really cold fusion, at all. Fusion is not claimed to take place within the deuterated crystal. So I think their claims strictly cover conventional fusion, and will not relate to CF/LENR in any way, unless the pyroelectric crystals can be mixed in with, or coated on, say Ni or Pd to catalyze more intense CF/LENR reactions, since these crystals can generate intense, localized EM-fields ( 25 V/nm).
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]:Rossi fails to call Dick Smith
Mr Millin told The Sun-Herald : ''I thought it was better if Dr Rossi rang us. He is a very important man and a very busy man and I didn't want to keep him waiting.'' But they had their wires crossed, their timing out of sync. Each was expecting the other to call. ''I didn't bother to blame him and he didn't bother to blame me,'' Mr Millin said. (Google transalte will have fun with this one, since it translates Rossi as Smith. ) - Original Message - http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/more-fizzer-than-fusion-so-dicks-not-energised-20120114-1q0fv.html What a screw up! - Jed
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]:Rossi fails to call Dick Smith
Geeze, don't these people have cell phones to coordinate with? T
[Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it but a new set of Rossi says is creating cognitive dissonance in several places. Rossi says on his blog that the price of his so-called megawatt plant has been reduced from $2 million to $1.5 million. But he projects that starting within a year, his 10kW devices will sell for $50/kW. $50 per kW is only $50,000 per megawatt. Why would anyone pay a million and a half dollars for something you could assemble yourself, albeit in a more modular form for $50,000? Perhaps Rossi should buy his own 10kW modules to put together his megawatt plant. Wasn't that what he did for his supposed first customer anyway? Best I recall even he claimed only 470 kW from more than 50 modules. This Rossi Says should be over the top for even the most enthusiastic believer. (first noticed, far as I know, by Alsetalokin on the moletrap forum: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2212page=709 )
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]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
in the discussion about cars and e-cat/defkalion I was assuming time to switch on of about 5 minute, taken from defkalion (most of my computation are from defkalion hyperion) today rossi give an answer about time to switch on/off http://faq.ecat.com/115733/will-an-e-cat-be-able-to-be-switched-on-and-off-easily-and-if-so-is-that-a-quick-process/ for his e-cat it is about 1 hour: On and off will take 1 hour, but the operation will be modulable it has a strong impact on the design of an hybrid car, meaning that it should work on battery for 1 hour. note that 5 minute is very similar to diesel time for warmup (in the old time, when Boy George was a star). 1 hour is very bad for vehicle, however maybe it is a design choice by rossi/NI linked to the use as heater. Defkalion seem (am I wrong?) to have designer a faster reactior, but we should check. 2012/1/12 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com Hi, just to add some useful data 2012/1/10 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com Right, I mean the battery need only to allow the vehicle to move on the highway, while the LENR engine is cold...
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]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
To ever use this tech in cars would require quick warm up - the steamers of the 1910s and 1920s could build up enough steam in a few minutes. If warm up is slow, they would have to use battery until enough steam available for elec generation in a series hybrid. Another reason (larger batteries in addition to limited lithium sources for the batteries required) that this tech is hindered compared to internal combustion for automobiles. Maybe suitable for steam ships or steam/electric of subs. Small scale steam turbines may not work in this auto size, probably would have to be piston steam generator. Ni-H's contribution to auto would be to keep oil prices down, that's plenty of help. There's no reason to hope Ni-H will do much for transportation - very efficient solutions using oil are already there. There are myriad areas using many therms where the process heat of Ni-H could quickly take over and reduce costs. No reason to try to adapt a pure heat source to take over the gas pressure to kinetic energy of internal combustion. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY in the discussion about cars and e-cat/defkalion I was assuming time to switch on of about 5 minute, taken from defkalion (most of my computation are from defkalion hyperion) today rossi give an answer about time to switch on/off http://faq.ecat.com/115733/will-an-e-cat-be-able-to-be-switched-on-and-off-easily-and-if-so-is-that-a-quick-process/ for his e-cat it is about 1 hour: On and off will take 1 hour, but the operation will be modulable it has a strong impact on the design of an hybrid car, meaning that it should work on battery for 1 hour. note that 5 minute is very similar to diesel time for warmup (in the old time, when Boy George was a star). 1 hour is very bad for vehicle, however maybe it is a design choice by rossi/NI linked to the use as heater. Defkalion seem (am I wrong?) to have designer a faster reactior, but we should check. 2012/1/12 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com Hi, just to add some useful data 2012/1/10 Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com Right, I mean the battery need only to allow the vehicle to move on the highway, while the LENR engine is cold...
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]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I was assuming time to switch on of about 5 minute, taken from defkalion (most of my computation are from defkalion hyperion) I do not know whether we should call this switch on or ramp up but yes, this is what I was looking at as well, when I estimated that a cold fusion powered car might need about 6 minutes of battery power at maximum speed. (One-tenth hour) When I say ramp up I mean I assume the cold fusion cell will remain turned on at all times, and when the driver turns on the car and prepares to drive off, the cold fusion cell will be boosted high temperatures as quickly as possible to drive a steam turbine or thermoelectric device. If that can be done in 30 seconds or so, then you need only a small number of batteries, like today's standard Prius. You might even use direct mechanical drive from a steam turbine. Although people might object to having to wait 30 seconds before driving off. That might be dangerous. Note that a Prius takes about 3 seconds to boot up its computer controls. If you drive off before that completes, the control panel goes ape shit and you think you are about to lose control and have it accelerate into a wall. Turbines are kind of slow to respond to controls. Jet engine aircraft are less responsive than propeller-driven ones. There was a gas turbine automobile prototype in the 1970s. I do not know what it was like to drive. It made a heck of a noise, I think. - Jed
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
[Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
Hi there, Rossi was just on the Smart Scarecrow Show. There were some new information / clarification (although I can't remember them all; the information below should be correct however I sometimes had problems understanding Rossi because of a pretty low audio quality and me not being a native English speaker): 1. He sold another 1MW reactor (in addition to the 13 which have already been sold), but many potential customers are in line... 2. Production should start in autumn, distribution in winter (if everything works out as planned) 3. He wants to sell one million Ecats next year (this is what they are aiming for in a complete year regarding production) 4. Price of the Home Ecat is down to 500$ 5. Ecat is thought for heating the home, not for heating the water for showering etc. 6. Refueling the Ecat is done by replacing a cartridge. This cartridge will cost around 10$ and will then be sent back to a factory where it will be recycled. 7. The testing of the Ecat through the University of Bologna is currently not at the top of his priority list (there is currently the engineering of the production facilities) but he said something about starting with this next month 8. I wanted to know something about the stability of the reactor (I was referring to the uptime of the reactor, however Sterling shortened the question). According to Rossi, especially the temperature output was stabilized with the help of NI (at least this is what I understood). 9. On patenting - his lawyers are working on that. 10. Regarding the radio frequency generator: He didn't want to reveal anything. He compared this to Martial Arts and said something about that it is important for overcoming the coulomb barrier. 11. If I understood him correctly (If!), while explaining the working mechanism of the reactor core, he said that in the reaction gamma rays will be emitted, then hit a lead shielding which then will heat up and therefore heat the water. 12. The first question regarding the first customer was (of course) not answered because of an NDA This is what I did just remember from 1:30h... There will surely be a transcript available soon. Wolf
Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:20:46 -0500: Hi, [snip] Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I was assuming time to switch on of about 5 minute, taken from defkalion (most of my computation are from defkalion hyperion) I do not know whether we should call this switch on or ramp up but yes, this is what I was looking at as well, when I estimated that a cold fusion powered car might need about 6 minutes of battery power at maximum speed. (One-tenth hour) When I say ramp up I mean I assume the cold fusion cell will remain turned on at all times, and when the driver turns on the car and prepares to drive off, the cold fusion cell will be boosted high temperatures as quickly as possible to drive a steam turbine or thermoelectric device. If that can be done in 30 seconds or so, then you need only a small number of batteries, like today's standard Prius. You might even use direct mechanical drive from a steam turbine. Although people might object to having to wait 30 seconds before driving off. That might be dangerous. I don't think we can make the assumption that that's what Rossi meant. I suspect he meant from a cold start. It probably hasn't occurred to him yet that someone might leave it running continuously at a low rate. I think he needs to be asked if there an 'idle' setting that will allow quick heat up to full power, and if so, how much power would be produced during 'idle' mode? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Kiplinger Letter, Jan 6 2012, Topic: ENERGY
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:20:46 -0500: Hi, [snip] Turbines are kind of slow to respond to controls. Jet engine aircraft are less responsive than propeller-driven ones. There was a gas turbine automobile prototype in the 1970s. I do not know what it was like to drive. It made a heck of a noise, I think. There have been gas turbine powered race cars, so the response can't have been too bad. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
In reply to Mary Yugo's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:54:16 -0800: Hi, I think the price of the 10 kW modules is just a projected price, and is probably more likely to be a manufacturing cost price than what he can really sell them for. Furthermore, I think that when the factory for the small units really kicks into high gear, the price of the 1 MW units will come down accordingly. Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it but a new set of Rossi says is creating cognitive dissonance in several places. Rossi says on his blog that the price of his so-called megawatt plant has been reduced from $2 million to $1.5 million. But he projects that starting within a year, his 10kW devices will sell for $50/kW. $50 per kW is only $50,000 per megawatt. Why would anyone pay a million and a half dollars for something you could assemble yourself, albeit in a more modular form for $50,000? Perhaps Rossi should buy his own 10kW modules to put together his megawatt plant. Wasn't that what he did for his supposed first customer anyway? Best I recall even he claimed only 470 kW from more than 50 modules. This Rossi Says should be over the top for even the most enthusiastic believer. (first noticed, far as I know, by Alsetalokin on the moletrap forum: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2212page=709 ) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion Economic Effects
In reply to Mauro Lacy's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:59:31 -0300: Hi, [snip] Maybe the solution is what Fidel Castro proposed recently: replace the US president with a robot. They already did that decades ago. ;^) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
In the interview, Rossi said the customer price would be $500 for a 10 kW E-Cat. AG On 1/15/2012 10:57 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mary Yugo's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:54:16 -0800: Hi, I think the price of the 10 kW modules is just a projected price, and is probably more likely to be a manufacturing cost price than what he can really sell them for. Furthermore, I think that when the factory for the small units really kicks into high gear, the price of the 1 MW units will come down accordingly. Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it but a new set of Rossi says is creating cognitive dissonance in several places. Rossi says on his blog that the price of his so-called megawatt plant has been reduced from $2 million to $1.5 million. But he projects that starting within a year, his 10kW devices will sell for $50/kW. $50 per kW is only $50,000 per megawatt. Why would anyone pay a million and a half dollars for something you could assemble yourself, albeit in a more modular form for $50,000? Perhaps Rossi should buy his own 10kW modules to put together his megawatt plant. Wasn't that what he did for his supposed first customer anyway? Best I recall even he claimed only 470 kW from more than 50 modules. This Rossi Says should be over the top for even the most enthusiastic believer. (first noticed, far as I know, by Alsetalokin on the moletrap forum: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2212page=709 ) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Rossi says the domestic E-Cat is in UL certification. AG On 1/15/2012 10:57 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mary Yugo's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:54:16 -0800: Hi, I think the price of the 10 kW modules is just a projected price, and is probably more likely to be a manufacturing cost price than what he can really sell them for. Furthermore, I think that when the factory for the small units really kicks into high gear, the price of the 1 MW units will come down accordingly. Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it but a new set of Rossi says is creating cognitive dissonance in several places. Rossi says on his blog that the price of his so-called megawatt plant has been reduced from $2 million to $1.5 million. But he projects that starting within a year, his 10kW devices will sell for $50/kW. $50 per kW is only $50,000 per megawatt. Why would anyone pay a million and a half dollars for something you could assemble yourself, albeit in a more modular form for $50,000? Perhaps Rossi should buy his own 10kW modules to put together his megawatt plant. Wasn't that what he did for his supposed first customer anyway? Best I recall even he claimed only 470 kW from more than 50 modules. This Rossi Says should be over the top for even the most enthusiastic believer. (first noticed, far as I know, by Alsetalokin on the moletrap forum: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2212page=709 ) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
In reply to Aussie Guy E-Cat's message of Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:04:53 +1030: Hi, [snip] In the interview, Rossi said the customer price would be $500 for a 10 kW E-Cat. AG I sincerely hope it is. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Size of a portable computer. Refill works like refilling a ball point pen. AG On 1/15/2012 11:09 AM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Aussie Guy E-Cat's message of Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:04:53 +1030: Hi, [snip] In the interview, Rossi said the customer price would be $500 for a 10 kW E-Cat. AG I sincerely hope it is. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
From Aussie: Rossi says the domestic E-Cat is in UL certification. Is in UL certification? Not sure I understand the phrase in as it's being used here. Does Rossi mean his eCats are currently being tested for UL certification? How could Rossi's eCats possibly get UL certification this soon? Good grief! Rossi claims his contraptions emit gamma radiation! 8-0 Something doesn't make sense here. I hope clarification is forth coming. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
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 $1000 worth of heat and then goes quiescent? Answer - negative economic value, since you have to ship it back. That is where we are on January 14, 2012 - like it or not: negative economic value. That is the reason for what you call a negative spin. Otherwise it is known as reality. E-Cat should never have been announced prematurely. This October surprise was a gigantic boondoggle that OPEC or the other enemies of LENR could not have orchestrated better. Yes, the good news is that there is short term energy anomaly. Can it be perfected to have positive economic value? Who knows, but it is not likely that it can be advanced by AR. He has made more enemies in the mainstream than has Santilli, so he is not likely to get much help without paying out the nose, which he will not do. DGT - in contrast - is in a good position. If you really want to use the technology in Oz, my advice is to jump ship, ditch AR and get onboard the Maru DGT, or any other Ni-H vehicle, before it leaves port. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
On 12-01-14 06:59 PM, Wolf Fischer wrote: Hi there, Rossi was just on the Smart Scarecrow Show. There were some new information / clarification ... 4. Price of the Home Ecat is down to 500$ 5. Ecat is thought for heating the home, not for heating the water for showering etc. 6. Refueling the Ecat is done by replacing a cartridge. This cartridge will cost around 10$ and will then be sent back to a factory where it will be recycled. ... These prices are just plain silly. He's going to manufacture furnaces for the home for $500 each. Sure he is, like I really believe that... The heat-generating mechanism in this thing is certainly at least as complex (and expensive to manufacture) as a simple gas burner (which is just a few parallel pipes with holes drilled in them). So, the eCat home furnace should be at least as expensive as a natural gas fired furnace. And you sure can't buy a gas furnace for $500, any more than you can buy a replacement printer cartridge for $10. (Maybe he's using some funny kind of dollars for his price quotes?)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Aussie: Rossi says the domestic E-Cat is in UL certification. Is in UL certification? Not sure I understand the phrase in as it's being used here. Does Rossi mean his eCats are currently being tested for UL certification? Yes. If so, I don't suppose he'd give us (or someone in the reliable press like maybe an AP reporter) a contact at Underwriter's Laboratories to let us know how the test is progressing and when they can have results? No trade secrets asked or wanted of course. How could Rossi's eCats possibly get UL certification this soon? Good grief! Rossi claims his contraptions emit gamma radiation! 8-0 Yes, not to mention that they supposedly have a self destruct mechanism and a safety heater! I imagine that means that if something happens to go wrong with the safety heater, something too terrible to mention happens to the E-cat and its owner? Something doesn't make sense here. I hope clarification is forth coming. Glad you came to the logical conclusion.
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]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Steven, That is what Rossi has said. Listed to the interview. He is working with UL to get the home unit certified. That means he has the final production unit working as UL don't certify prototypes. They will however work with a company on the final product so as to obtain certification and they understand the final product may need some tweaking to get their stamp. AG On 1/15/2012 11:32 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Aussie: Rossi says the domestic E-Cat is in UL certification. Is in UL certification? Not sure I understand the phrase in as it's being used here. Does Rossi mean his eCats are currently being tested for UL certification? How could Rossi's eCats possibly get UL certification this soon? Good grief! Rossi claims his contraptions emit gamma radiation!8-0 Something doesn't make sense here. I hope clarification is forth coming. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
What I learned from the interview. 10 kW home E-Cat is the size of a portable computer. Rossi calls the recharges Energy Sticks, fits with the ball point pen refill statement. Replacement is simple and can be done by anyone. No H2 canisters used. Reactor stores and recycles the H2. Only uses picograms of H2. Reactor control is via regulation of operational heat point. Fuel lasts 4,320 operational hours (180 days at 24 hours a day). E-Cat will signal when refill is needed. Customer can purchase several refills and keep them in stock. Cost of the refill to the customer will be $10 plus installation if needed. Will be available via internet sales. Home units will run in self sustain mode. 512 keV 180 deg Gammas have been detected. 1st 1 MW plant is in modification. Should be operation in 1 - 2 months. 12 additional 1 MW plants are being built. 1 additional 1 MW plant has been sold to another customer. UL certification of the home E-Cat is in process. 2.7 to 2.9 kWs needed for 1 hour to start the home 10 kW E-Cat. Home E-Cat has only 1 reactor. Rossi claims the RFG helps the Coulomb barrier work with the reaction and not against it. First E-Cat factory is in Florida. Rossi is going to Massachusetts to further discuss building another E-Cat plant there. Home E-Cat production will start in the US fall. Sales will start in the US winter. Rossi is not interested in family investors as the business is still risky. Large hedge funds are welcome but only with a small % investment. Does plan to go public. Home E-Cat has a 30 year expected life. Customer price between $400 to $500 for a home E-Cat 10 kW thermal unit. AG On 1/15/2012 10:29 AM, Wolf Fischer wrote: Hi there, Rossi was just on the Smart Scarecrow Show. There were some new information / clarification (although I can't remember them all; the information below should be correct however I sometimes had problems understanding Rossi because of a pretty low audio quality and me not being a native English speaker): 1. He sold another 1MW reactor (in addition to the 13 which have already been sold), but many potential customers are in line... 2. Production should start in autumn, distribution in winter (if everything works out as planned) 3. He wants to sell one million Ecats next year (this is what they are aiming for in a complete year regarding production) 4. Price of the Home Ecat is down to 500$ 5. Ecat is thought for heating the home, not for heating the water for showering etc. 6. Refueling the Ecat is done by replacing a cartridge. This cartridge will cost around 10$ and will then be sent back to a factory where it will be recycled. 7. The testing of the Ecat through the University of Bologna is currently not at the top of his priority list (there is currently the engineering of the production facilities) but he said something about starting with this next month 8. I wanted to know something about the stability of the reactor (I was referring to the uptime of the reactor, however Sterling shortened the question). According to Rossi, especially the temperature output was stabilized with the help of NI (at least this is what I understood). 9. On patenting - his lawyers are working on that. 10. Regarding the radio frequency generator: He didn't want to reveal anything. He compared this to Martial Arts and said something about that it is important for overcoming the coulomb barrier. 11. If I understood him correctly (If!), while explaining the working mechanism of the reactor core, he said that in the reaction gamma rays will be emitted, then hit a lead shielding which then will heat up and therefore heat the water. 12. The first question regarding the first customer was (of course) not answered because of an NDA This is what I did just remember from 1:30h... There will surely be a transcript available soon. Wolf
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: What I learned from the interview. 10 kW home E-Cat is the size of a portable computer.SNIP Just curious -- you believe all that? Some of that? None of that?
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]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
They will however work with a company on the final product so as to obtain certification and they understand the final product may need some tweaking to get their stamp. Aussie, I confess that at present you have me at a disadvantage. I have not yet listened to the interview. I plan to listen to it soon. With that confession said, I simply find it... well surreal to assume that Rossi has gotten this far, so soon. Granted, maybe he has. And if so, good for Rossi. We all benefit... well, except perhaps for the entire petroleum industrial complex and its countless subsidiaries. Having not yet listened to the interview it is natural for someone in my shoes to perceive the phrase you used: ... may need some tweaking as if it's a joker in the card deck. It could mean just about anything. Maybe tweaking means Rossi's eCats will be ready for prime-time in just couple of months, with just a few minor adjustments here and there. However, tweaking could also mean Rossi's eCats could take another ten or twenty years and several billion dollars of RD funding before someone like me can buy one from Wall Mart. I just don't know enuf yet. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: These prices are just plain silly. He's going to manufacture furnaces for the home for $500 each. Sure he is, like I really believe that... On the contrary, it is quite believable. The device is only 10 kW, which is not enough to heat an entire house. It sounds like a stand-alone device, like a large baseboard electric room heater, or a kerosene heater. A 240 V 5 kW baseboard heater costs $250, so that's right at the same price point. 12 kW kerosene heaters cost $150 to $250. A small gas furnace designed for central heating, with remote thermostatic controls and whatnot costs $800 to $1000. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Steven, That is what Rossi has said. Listed to the interview. He is working with UL to get the home unit certified. That means he has the final production unit working as UL don't certify prototypes. They will however work with a company on the final product so as to obtain certification and they understand the final product may need some tweaking to get their stamp. Rossi also claims CE certification. I joined CE to confirm this and could not. Next time you speak with him, ask him for a copy of the CE certification. T
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]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Terry, I thought CE certification was largely self certification with the manufacturer claiming his product meets all applicable standards. What way, if it doesn't, a CE certifier doesn't get sued, the manufacturer does. AG On 1/15/2012 1:12 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Steven, That is what Rossi has said. Listed to the interview. He is working with UL to get the home unit certified. That means he has the final production unit working as UL don't certify prototypes. They will however work with a company on the final product so as to obtain certification and they understand the final product may need some tweaking to get their stamp. Rossi also claims CE certification. I joined CE to confirm this and could not. Next time you speak with him, ask him for a copy of the CE certification. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Steven, I have been involved with UL certification. You first send them a unit for their analysis. Then following their initial report, you make a few changes to tweak the product so it will pass. AG On 1/15/2012 1:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: They will however work with a company on the final product so as to obtain certification and they understand the final product may need some tweaking to get their stamp. Aussie, I confess that at present you have me at a disadvantage. I have not yet listened to the interview. I plan to listen to it soon. With that confession said, I simply find it... well surreal to assume that Rossi has gotten this far, so soon. Granted, maybe he has. And if so, good for Rossi. We all benefit... well, except perhaps for the entire petroleum industrial complex and its countless subsidiaries. Having not yet listened to the interview it is natural for someone in my shoes to perceive the phrase you used: ... may need some tweaking as if it's a joker in the card deck. It could mean just about anything. Maybe tweaking means Rossi's eCats will be ready for prime-time in just couple of months, with just a few minor adjustments here and there. However, tweaking could also mean Rossi's eCats could take another ten or twenty years and several billion dollars of RD funding before someone like me can buy one from Wall Mart. I just don't know enuf yet. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
I wrote: He's going to manufacture furnaces for the home for $500 each. Sure he is, like I really believe that... On the contrary, it is quite believable. The device is only 10 kW, which is not enough to heat an entire house. . . . I meant the pricing is believable. The price points are reasonable. Some people may have trouble believing that it works at all, since it is cold fusion powered. Some people may doubt that he can make one cheap. I wouldn't know about that. Apart from those considerations, there is no reason why a stand-alone 10 kW device should not cost around $500. The cold fusion cell is not expensive. The rest of the machine, including the metal cabinet, the controls, the thermostat, wiring and whatnot should not be much more expensive than the 5 kW electric baseboard heater at Lowe's. Of course the machine saves a terrific amount of money over the long term because it uses much less electricity, and no gas or kerosene. It could be priced higher and still sell. However, I think that when you are breaking into an existing market with a revolutionary technology that people are not familiar with, it is better to start off with the lowest price you can. Based on the price points of the competing minicomputers, the Apple and IBM personal computers could have been sold at much higher prices. But sales would have been anemic. They would have sold only to the existing minicomputer market, which was small. It was better to undercut them, drive them out of business quickly, and at the same time attract droves of new customers. A $500 eCat stand alone heater might be a good deal even if you price it at $2000, given the lifetime savings from reduced electric power consumption. But not many people would buy it. People who can afford $2000 for a small heater are so wealthy they don't care about the money they save. A few wealthy people with isolated log cabins might buy one. The others would just go on using firewood, which saves as much energy as an eCat. (You only pay for the gasoline to cut the wood, so overall energy savings are about the same as with an eCat.) However, when you price it at $500, suddenly you have millions of potential customers. The savings are huge, and the cost is close enough to an impulse purchase, for something like a decked out backyard grill or a fancy push lawnmower. People who have perfectly good central heating will say: Heck, why not? It pays for itself the first year. All in all, from the marketing point of view, I would say this is the perfect starting product at just the right price. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
Jed, I agree. I did once design embedded control systems. The cost to Rossi would be around $10, especially in the 1m unit pricing. Electronics today is done for almost nothing. Retail price can however be 1,000s of time higher, especially if you must buy that failed controller from a single source. I'm starting to form a mental picture of the home E-Cat, especially after Rossi called the replaceable fuel module a Energy Stick and said replacing them was not replacing the ink cartridge in a ball point pen. What I also found interesting was Rossi saying the E-Cat only used picograms of H2 and that the home E-Cat had a system to recycle the H2 so there were no H2 cartridges to replace. Then there was the bit that the RFG caused the Coulomb barrier to work for and not against the reaction. Here I note DFG claim not to use a RFG. AG On 1/15/2012 1:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: These prices are just plain silly. He's going to manufacture furnaces for the home for $500 each. Sure he is, like I really believe that... On the contrary, it is quite believable. The device is only 10 kW, which is not enough to heat an entire house. It sounds like a stand-alone device, like a large baseboard electric room heater, or a kerosene heater. A 240 V 5 kW baseboard heater costs $250, so that's right at the same price point. 12 kW kerosene heaters cost $150 to $250. A small gas furnace designed for central heating, with remote thermostatic controls and whatnot costs $800 to $1000. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the Smart Scarecrow Show
Mary, From what I know, there was nothing said that seemed to be out of place. Rossi's earlier Door Knob copper reactor could reach the 10 - 20 kW power level. It was a VERY simple design. If that is what is at the heart of the home E-Cat, Rossi will make a fortune selling 10 kW units for $400 to $500 each. AG On 1/15/2012 1:04 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: What I learned from the interview. 10 kW home E-Cat is the size of a portable computer.SNIP Just curious -- you believe all that? Some of that? None of that?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 7:27 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mary Yugo's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:54:16 -0800: Hi, I think the price of the 10 kW modules is just a projected price, and is probably more likely to be a manufacturing cost price than what he can really sell them for. Furthermore, I think that when the factory for the small units really kicks into high gear, the price of the 1 MW units will come down accordingly. Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it but a new set of Rossi says is creating cognitive dissonance in several places. Rossi says on his blog that the price of his so-called megawatt plant has been reduced from $2 million to $1.5 million. But he projects that starting within a year, his 10kW devices will sell for $50/kW. $50 per kW is only $50,000 per megawatt. Why would anyone pay a million and a half dollars for something you could assemble yourself, albeit in a more modular form for $50,000? This is truly idiotic comment. Yugo does not understand the first thing about business or technology. I am glad I blocker her message. This is like asking anyone would buy a Data General Supernova minicomputer in 1979, knowing that in a few years personal computers would become available with far better price/performance ratios. In the 1970s and early 80s I knew lots of companies that purchased Data General supernovas and MV 8000s, and DEC computers of similar types. I programmed them. The customers and I and everyone else knew perfectly well that minicomputers would soon knock their socks off. We were looking forward to it. I *owned* a minicomputer, with 4 kB of ram. I used to show it to minicomputer users. However, in the meanwhile, before the deluge of microcomputers hit, those companies got every dime's worth of value out of the machines they purchased. The same thing applies to the people who purchased early model automobiles and truck, airplanes, copy machines, supercomputers of the 1960s which had about as much computing power as today's cellphones, and every other technology of the last 200 years. It always goes obsolete quickly. For some users, for some purposes, it is worth buying anyway. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Terry, I thought CE certification was largely self certification with the manufacturer claiming his product meets all applicable standards. What way, if it doesn't, a CE certifier doesn't get sued, the manufacturer does. Regardless, ask for a copy of the certification, for your own protection. T
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]:Re: [Vo]:'Quiescence' – a detailed causation speculation.
FYI Factors affecting recrystallization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 'Quiescence' – a detailed causation speculation. My theory of E-Cat operation states that polycrystalline tubercle structures in the nanometer size range on the surface of micro sized nickel particles will dissociate molecular hydrogen (H2) into hydrogen ions (protons) based on patch field electrostatic interactions with Rydberg atoms. If you need a refresher on my theory, see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg55135.html A varied and random polycrystalline tubercle structure is required to load protons into the micro-powder. Quiescence is caused by a disintegration of this polycrystalline tubercle structure either by melting the tubercles causing recrystallization of the tubercle thereby making the crystal structure of the micro powder more homogeneous. In other words, the tubercle crystal structures will tend to revert to the default (111) FCC crystal orientation. This recrystallization process will proceed at a rate proportional to the temperature point above nominal levels. This realignment should occur somewhere below 1000C but become increasingly less probable as the powder operating temperature is decreased into the 600C range. The operational temperature of the Rossi powder may range at plus or minus 50C centered on 600C. Since Rossi controls this powder temperature manually, this tight optimum power operating temperature range is impossible to maintain leading to quick powder spill over catalytic failure. A fast reaction National instrument control system is required to make negative feedback adjustments using temperature sensors to keep the operational temperature of the Rossi powder in the 600C + or - 50C temperature range to keep the powder from exceeding specification for high temperature operations so that destructive recrystallization does not occur.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
At this time I bet being in certification means Rossi is in discussions with the certifier to see if the test environment can be secured. Harry On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Steven, I have been involved with UL certification. You first send them a unit for their analysis. Then following their initial report, you make a few changes to tweak the product so it will pass. AG On 1/15/2012 1:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: They will however work with a company on the final product so as to obtain certification and they understand the final product may need some tweaking to get their stamp. Aussie, I confess that at present you have me at a disadvantage. I have not yet listened to the interview. I plan to listen to it soon. With that confession said, I simply find it... well surreal to assume that Rossi has gotten this far, so soon. Granted, maybe he has. And if so, good for Rossi. We all benefit... well, except perhaps for the entire petroleum industrial complex and its countless subsidiaries. Having not yet listened to the interview it is natural for someone in my shoes to perceive the phrase you used: ... may need some tweaking as if it's a joker in the card deck. It could mean just about anything. Maybe tweaking means Rossi's eCats will be ready for prime-time in just couple of months, with just a few minor adjustments here and there. However, tweaking could also mean Rossi's eCats could take another ten or twenty years and several billion dollars of RD funding before someone like me can buy one from Wall Mart. I just don't know enuf yet. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Jed, Rossi is onto a winner here. Look at the earlier copper pipe Door Knob style reactor. It produced in the 10 to 20 kW range, same as the home E-Cat. Put it in a case, a few fittings for the fluid, small mirco for control, small transformerless power supply, wraparound heater, RFG coil, a screw in Energy Stick with the Ni power and like Bob's your uncle, you have a home E-Cat. Cost when making 1 mil per year? Maybe $100 tops. He needs to give WalMart and other retailer around 100% markup, so out the factory door at $200 to $250 for a $400 to $500 retail. Nice profit there for Rossi and the retailer. VERY DOABLE. Can see there will be addons, like external heat exchangers and circulation pumps with fans for space heating, inside water tank heat exchangers for hot water, etc. Doubt this is a whole system price, more like a price for the E-Cat thermal unit with an inlet connection and a outlet connection plus a On/Off button and a light / beeper to say it is time to replace the Energy Stick. Could be quite small as the Fat E-Cat reactor assembly was stated as being 20 x 20 x 1 cm with 2 cm of lead on all sides. That reactor assembly had 3 reactor cores. Rossi has said the home unit only has 1 reactor, so maybe the reactor assembly is them reduced to 8 x 20 x 1. With 2 cm of lead on all sides we get 12 x 24 x 5 cm. Lap top size as Rossi has stated. AG On 1/15/2012 1:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 7:27 PM, mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Mary Yugo's message of Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:54:16 -0800: Hi, I think the price of the 10 kW modules is just a projected price, and is probably more likely to be a manufacturing cost price than what he can really sell them for. Furthermore, I think that when the factory for the small units really kicks into high gear, the price of the 1 MW units will come down accordingly. Sorry if this was discussed and I missed it but a new set of Rossi says is creating cognitive dissonance in several places. Rossi says on his blog that the price of his so-called megawatt plant has been reduced from $2 million to $1.5 million. But he projects that starting within a year, his 10kW devices will sell for $50/kW. $50 per kW is only $50,000 per megawatt. Why would anyone pay a million and a half dollars for something you could assemble yourself, albeit in a more modular form for $50,000? This is truly idiotic comment. Yugo does not understand the first thing about business or technology. I am glad I blocker her message. This is like asking anyone would buy a Data General Supernova minicomputer in 1979, knowing that in a few years personal computers would become available with far better price/performance ratios. In the 1970s and early 80s I knew lots of companies that purchased Data General supernovas and MV 8000s, and DEC computers of similar types. I programmed them. The customers and I and everyone else knew perfectly well that minicomputers would soon knock their socks off. We were looking forward to it. I _owned_ a minicomputer, with 4 kB of ram. I used to show it to minicomputer users. However, in the meanwhile, before the deluge of microcomputers hit, those companies got every dime's worth of value out of the machines they purchased. The same thing applies to the people who purchased early model automobiles and truck, airplanes, copy machines, supercomputers of the 1960s which had about as much computing power as today's cellphones, and every other technology of the last 200 years. It always goes obsolete quickly. For some users, for some purposes, it is worth buying anyway. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's pricing mismatch is really gross
Harry, That is how the UL certification process starts. They do an analysis and give you a prelim report on what needs to be tweaked to get certification. They will work with a company during the development stage as well. Just you need to pay them. AG On 1/15/2012 3:57 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: At this time I bet being in certification means Rossi is in discussions with the certifier to see if the test environment can be secured. Harry On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: Steven, I have been involved with UL certification. You first send them a unit for their analysis. Then following their initial report, you make a few changes to tweak the product so it will pass. AG On 1/15/2012 1:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: They will however work with a company on the final product so as to obtain certification and they understand the final product may need some tweaking to get their stamp. Aussie, I confess that at present you have me at a disadvantage. I have not yet listened to the interview. I plan to listen to it soon. With that confession said, I simply find it... well surreal to assume that Rossi has gotten this far, so soon. Granted, maybe he has. And if so, good for Rossi. We all benefit... well, except perhaps for the entire petroleum industrial complex and its countless subsidiaries. Having not yet listened to the interview it is natural for someone in my shoes to perceive the phrase you used: ... may need some tweaking as if it's a joker in the card deck. It could mean just about anything. Maybe tweaking means Rossi's eCats will be ready for prime-time in just couple of months, with just a few minor adjustments here and there. However, tweaking could also mean Rossi's eCats could take another ten or twenty years and several billion dollars of RD funding before someone like me can buy one from Wall Mart. I just don't know enuf yet. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Rossi interview on youtube
1.6 hours long http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5cG-36Bag
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:'Quiescence' – a detailed causation speculation.
Recrystallization temperatures for different metals… Nickel---600C, Iron---450C, Copper---200C, Aluminum---150C, Zinc---Room Temperature, As depicted in the table above, even if copper can be used as a replacement for Nickel in the Rossi reaction, the operating temperature of copper nano-powder will be very low. Quiescence will occur at a very low temperature. Also, the accumulation of copper in the nickel powder will poison the Rossi reaction over an extended running time. Alloying can increase the recrystallization temperature. On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: FYI Factors affecting recrystallization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization_(metallurgy) On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 'Quiescence' – a detailed causation speculation. My theory of E-Cat operation states that polycrystalline tubercle structures in the nanometer size range on the surface of micro sized nickel particles will dissociate molecular hydrogen (H2) into hydrogen ions (protons) based on patch field electrostatic interactions with Rydberg atoms. If you need a refresher on my theory, see: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg55135.html A varied and random polycrystalline tubercle structure is required to load protons into the micro-powder. Quiescence is caused by a disintegration of this polycrystalline tubercle structure either by melting the tubercles causing recrystallization of the tubercle thereby making the crystal structure of the micro powder more homogeneous. In other words, the tubercle crystal structures will tend to revert to the default (111) FCC crystal orientation. This recrystallization process will proceed at a rate proportional to the temperature point above nominal levels. This realignment should occur somewhere below 1000C but become increasingly less probable as the powder operating temperature is decreased into the 600C range. The operational temperature of the Rossi powder may range at plus or minus 50C centered on 600C. Since Rossi controls this powder temperature manually, this tight optimum power operating temperature range is impossible to maintain leading to quick powder spill over catalytic failure. A fast reaction National instrument control system is required to make negative feedback adjustments using temperature sensors to keep the operational temperature of the Rossi powder in the 600C + or - 50C temperature range to keep the powder from exceeding specification for high temperature operations so that destructive recrystallization does not occur.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi interview on youtube
Listening to the interview again. Home E-Cat reactor is the size of a package of cigarettes. Smaller than I thought but still based on the flat reactor assembly as used in the Fat E-Cats. AG On 1/15/2012 4:26 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: 1.6 hours long http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP5cG-36Bag
