Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel. "The link is not working!" Try this http://supaflex-agencies.com/solutions/case-study-8--clyde-boilers-7-mws-at-london-bridge-city.html

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

The link is not working! 2016-05-18 20:09 GMT-03:00 a.ashfield : > EDIT: The fourth picture down this page shows 4.4MW's of boiler stuck in a > basement, with a HVAC system smaller than found in a small (500 person) > nightclub. Funny that. > >

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jones Beene wrote: > JR: Why do you say that? > > It’s pretty obvious. Going back twenty years, Thermacore – a world class > company in thermodynamics, saw 280 days of gain at COP of ~1.5 using nickel > . . . > Nickel does not always work. Many people have tried it and got

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

The heat output from the Rssi reactor was transferred through the use of a heat exchange with the excess not used by the customer being vented to the outside of the building. The temperature of the return water may be estimated through the projection of the efficiency of the heat exchanger with a

RE: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Slad gave figures for the pipe sizes for the input of water and the exit of steam for the 1 MW plant. It occurred to me that the pipe size is not critical if the system is really a closed loop. The flow rate of water is easy to measure. Whether the output is dry steam depends largely on the

RE: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

From: Jed Rothwell This leads us back to the Lawsuit. It is incomprehensible that Rossi does not also have some gain – in the range of COP~1.2-1.5. JR: Why do you say that? It’s pretty obvious. Going back twenty years, Thermacore – a world class company in thermodynamics, saw 280 days of gain

[Vo]: I.H. is good at calorimetry but bad at doing business

Based on what Jed said so far, I.H. is very good at calorimetry but very bad at doing business. I would expect the opposit. Rossi on the other hand... Alberto.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jones Beene wrote: > This leads us back to the Lawsuit. It is incomprehensible that Rossi does > not also have some gain – in the range of COP~1.2-1.5. > Why do you say that? Do you have some inside information? Based on what I have seen, it is quite comprehensible there

Re: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Peter Gluck wrote: Are you aware about the differences between a patent and know-how? > Plus know-what, know-why and know-how- not? > Yes. I understand this difference. A PHOSITA has the know-how. If the patent does not disclose enough information for a PHOSITA to

Re: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Chris Zell wrote: Taking info from published patents is one of those theory vs practice > subjects. There are lots of patents that flat out don’t work at all, don’t > work because of deliberate sins of commission/omission in publication or in > the opinion of Prominent

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

a.ashfield wrote: Jed. I did not say it is impossible. Please do not put words in my mouth. > > AA. You said it was not possible to know if the 1 MW plant produced 1 MW > without knowing where the output went > This is just a variant of what I quoted you as saying. >

[Vo]:Irre- and days of wrath in LENR

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-18-2016-lenr-irre-and-days-of-wrath.html a shorter issue- we are looking forward and back in anger-- but good sunny days will come soon... peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jed says he thinks it it impossible to measure the performance of a black box by measuring the input and output, without knowing how the heat is dissipated from the output. That is clearly not true. Jed. I did not say it is impossible. Please do not put words in my mouth. AA. You said it

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

*try to reproduce 2016-05-18 12:39 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha : > MFMP, Parkhomov, and the hundreds of tests reproduces > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

I think Rossi is the best thing that happened to Cold Fusion since the detection of He4, independently of him being right or not. Many people became curious with it. Perhaps MFMP would not exist without him. I think it will end well, as long as this soap opera with Rossi continues. In any case, I

Re: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Dear Jed, Are you aware about the differences between a patent and know-how? Plus know-what, know-why and know-how- not? Do you have some industrial experience with this- even a minimum - IT included where you are at home? Every industry and problem is very specific and the essentials cannot be

RE: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

From: Daniel Rocha … some of them [MFMP] did yield COP>1, at least that's what I understand from Bob Higgins. And these are not perfect replications. Last Sunday there was a Bay Area Meetup group. Alan Goldwater presented his latest MFMP results. He is doing top quality work

RE: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Taking info from published patents is one of those theory vs practice subjects. There are lots of patents that flat out don’t work at all, don’t work because of deliberate sins of commission/omission in publication or in the opinion of Prominent Scientist Skeptoids, violate physics ( a bunch

Re: [Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

Strange voice input error: > With a valid patent the technology is an open book. You can replicate all > you like and do as many experiments are billed as many prototypes as you > want. > BUILD as many prototypes as you want . . . This is a 21st century problem. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel Rocha wrote: There is something to steal. You insisted that the test by the colonel > yielded extra heat. > No, I said there was no proof and I have no idea what the colonel saw or did. > There were other occasions tooSo, there is something there. > There may

[Vo]:Anyone can "steal" IP from a patent

I wrote: > It's easier to suppose IH did steal tech from Rossi. >> > > There is nothing to steal. > By the way, this whole notion that I.H. can "steal" technology from Rossi is preposterous. This technology is patented. If the patent is valid, anyone on God's green earth can "steal" it as

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

There is something to steal. You insisted that the test by the colonel yielded extra heat. There were other occasions tooSo, there is something there. And we don't know what he breached several times and why didn't they just cancel the whole thing only in the end. IH is not composed by stupid

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel Rocha wrote: At the end of the test? That's cheating from IH. They should had required > that before the test. > They required it at the beginning, the middle and the end, several times. They made several other requirements clear. He did not fulfill a single one of

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel Rocha wrote: So, you have seen a *sample*. Mats has data and he sees excess heat. > My guess is that he has the same sample I have. Rossi says it shows excess heat, but I disagree. The people at I.H. also disagree with him. Anyone experienced making these

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

At the end of the test? That's cheating from IH. They should had required that before the test. This kind of requirement goes to an endless loop of questions which ends in IH claiming something impossible to do. It's easier to suppose IH did steal tech from Rossi. 2016-05-18 10:58 GMT-03:00 Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel Rocha wrote: And that was agreed by IH. > No, I.H. emphatically did not agree! As stated by Rossi himself, "At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used." I.H. insisted. Rossi

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

a.ashfield wrote: > Jed says he thinks it it impossible to measure the performance of a black > box by measuring the input and output, without knowing how the heat is > dissipated from the output. That is clearly not true. > I did not say it is impossible. Please do

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Craig Haynie wrote: > However, if Rossi believed he had something real, then there were valid > reasons not to allow IH to analyze their own data, or get too involved with > the validation of the device, at the stage which occurred last year in the > process, when the

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

And that was agreed by IH. 2016-05-18 10:44 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > so I am sure he had all the access he wanted. > >

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Eric Walker wrote: > Is the suggestion that Penon was in control and that he did not allow > Leonardo access to the customer installation either? > Rossi had the keys and he was often seen going into the secret facility. His lawyer set up the company, so I am sure he had

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

So, you have seen a *sample*. Mats has data and he sees excess heat. 2016-05-18 10:41 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > I have seen a sample of the data and I agree there is no excess heat. > > >

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Jack Cole wrote: > IH was supposedly given everything they needed to replicate, and they > were unable to. > I do not know whether they attempted to replicate. I have not heard about this. The present dispute is not about a replication. It is about Rossi's own tests, and

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Mats has data on his hand and says COP>1. And I haven't seen any test that included electric discharge,

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel, Of the ones I mentioned, none exhibited COP > 1. I will let MFMP speak to whether they think they might have gotten COP>1, but I would say that they have not convincingly. Some of my early experiments looked promising, but I must conclude them in error since I saw nothing when I

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

As I have said before, the facts are not known with certainty and we need to wait for more data before reaching a conclusion. Jed says he thinks it it impossible to measure the performance of a black box by measuring the input and output, without knowing how the heat is dissipated from the

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

That is not the same as testing Rossi's devices. But some of them did yield COP>1, at least that's what I understand from Bob Higgins. And these are not perfect replications. Check his new patent out to know what you missed. 2016-05-18 10:02 GMT-03:00 Jack Cole : > Yes, of

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Yes, of course. I should have probably said at least a 100 instead of 100s, although 100s would probably be valid as people often don't publish negative results. On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:58 AM Daniel Rocha wrote: > Are referring to replications? > > >

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Are referring to replications?

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Personally, I have conducted ~30. Ed Storms has conducted "dozens." Budko & Korshunov conducted 17. Jeff Morris has conducted at least 3 in a calorimeter. JPB has conducted 20+. How many has Brian Albiston conducted now (20-40)? Oh yes, almost forgot Brian Ahern, Mizzou, Lugano, MFMP. On

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

How do you know that? 2016-05-18 9:30 GMT-03:00 Jack Cole : > On the contrary, hundreds of experiments say it doesn't work at all. > >

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

Daniel Rocha wrote: "My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. " There is no new pattern, but the previous patterns have been elucidated. One too many cards were added to the house of cards, and now it is