subject:"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.
>
> supaflex-agencies.com/solution…t-london-bridge-city.html
>
>

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 nothing. So
it cannot be "obvious" that Rossi succeeded. The only way to determine this
is to examine his calorimetry. I and everyone else I know who has done that
quickly reached the conclusion that this large reactor is not producing any
excess heat.

It is possible he got heat in the past, but not in this test.


> Chuck Haldeman head of Lincoln Lab at MIT visited Thermacore, copied
> their technique and found even greater gain. . . .
>
I know. But that proves nothing about Rossi's calorimetry in this test. The
fact Prof. X gets heat does not mean that Prof. Y will also get it. That is
no more true of Ni than it is of Pd.

It is disingenuous to suggest that Rossi could not duplicate this early
> work, even if you have doubts that he added anything new.
>
Why is it disingenuous? Rossi has never published any convincing proof that
he saw excess heat. His tests have all been sloppy and undocumented. This
test is just as bad. The only credible evidence for heat from Rossi was the
first Levi test, and that could be wrong. As far as anyone knows, Rossi has
never succeeded.

- Jed

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

2016-05-18 Thread Axil Axil

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 temperature of steam into the heat exchanger at 130C..

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:30 AM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> 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 output.  That is clearly not true.
>
> Also, I have seen sufficient number of  reports of others finding
> anomalous heat to be persuaded LENR is real.   Others think so too. See
> www.lenrproof.com
>
>

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 temperature, which is also easy to measure. So if the
temperature was say 120C, it would be dry. So really the only unknown
required to prove whether the 1 MW plant worked is that temperature, if
it is high enough.

He also gives comments about the temperature in the E--Cat container
that supports what I wrote earlier.
ref
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3232-To-discus-the-science-behind-the-dispute-between-Rossi-and-Industrial-Heat/?pageNo=14

"Slad
Yesterday, 11:41pm
@Tom P, interesting idea... Send steam out, get steam returned back,
pretend you just boiled some water. The problem is the pipe diameters as
seen in photos of the shipping container.

The outlet pipe looks to be about 125mm diameter. In order to send 1MW
of steam down such a pipe, the steam velocity would be approx 25m/s. The
return pipe looks to be about 25mm in diameter, a 25 times reduction in
cross sectional area.

This means if this pipe contains steam, it's velocity would be approx.
525m/s... 1.55x the speed of sound! (This would be a very bad thing from
an engineering/safety perspective)

@Dewey Weaver... If you don't mind me saying, I think you should stick
to what you are good at, namely venture capitalism, and trolling forums
- not pontificating on thermodynamics. To reply to a post full of
numbers with a sarcastic comment is pretty bad form anywhere, but
particularly so on a science forum.

Sure, I didn't include all my workings as (a) it would have taken to
long to type, (b) people don't want to read about Nusselt and Prandtl
numbers, (c) anyone with the ability to check my workings will likely
have their own spreadsheets or simulators if they want to check what I
said is correct.

Really, you should be more grateful. I just saved you $1000's of dollars
that you could of blown on having someone model this...

The thing is, thermodynamics isn't an art... it's a science. It's based
100 year old theories and 'simple' calculations. Hence (unless the
shipping container is crammed into a tiny little room) anyone you pay to
do the calcs will get pretty much the same answers as I gave.

Unless you have some proper drawings for what's inside the 250kW ecats
(i.e. insulation type(s) and thickness), it will be a useless exercise
anyway... My calculations are only intended to show that it would be
exceptionally easy to design a system that doesn't "boil your fish bowl"
or whatever expression you wish to use... Between 10 to 50mm of
bog-standard insulation is all that's necessary.

One little hint: When you are looking for your expert to do this
supposed thermal modelling, make sure they have an engineering
qualifications; Japanese language translators, who have once visited a
ships engine room, are rarely up to the necessary calibre... Including
have been running their own LENR library for years.

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.

supaflex-agencies.com/solution…t-london-bridge-city.html

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

2016-05-18 Thread Jones Beene

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 at COP of ~1.5 using nickel, 
hydrogen and potassium catalyst. They patented this work but because of a 
change in ownership did not pursue it. 

Chuck Haldeman head of Lincoln Lab at MIT visited Thermacore, copied their 
technique and found even greater gain. MIT refused permission for him to 
publish, but this episode is well documented and will come out. Piantelli, 
Mills, and numerous others have seen the same level of gain but no one has been 
able to push it to higher COP. Rossi has said that he studied the prior patents 
and improved on them.

It is disingenuous to suggest that Rossi could not duplicate this early work, 
even if you have doubts that he added anything new. Bob Higgins who debunked 
the Lugano garbage, still thinks there was gain there. The informed opinion and 
the debate around Rossi, until recently - has always been the level of claimed 
gain, and not that there was no gain at all.

It should surprise no one that there was thermal gain at least at the level of 
Thermacore – but that it was less than the contract called for… thus the 
attempted scam.

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 is no gain. It looks to me like
a COP in the cooling loop is below 1, because of waste heat losses from the
reactor, which is a poorly designed electric heater.

There is no indication of excess heat.

Let’s make it clear that IH is partly to blame.
>

Why?? They did all they could to persuade Rossi to do a proper test. He
refused. They demanded he show them the customer equipment. He refused. He
blocked them at every stage.

> If Rossi has any gain at all and demonstrated it, IH is then at fault for
> not admitting that there is some gain . . .
>

If he has any gain at all he should have installed proper instruments and
he should have done a test that demonstrates this heat. Even with his
present ridiculous configuration it is clear from his data there is no
excess heat.

> IH could hire competent engineers to reproduce slight gain- except this
> step would be seen as a partial admission that Rossi has something of value.
>

I.H. has superb engineers. They have confirmed there is no heat. They have
better, more complete information than I do, so they can be more certain of
this than I am.

The crux of the situation is that a low level of gain, whatever it is – is
> scientifically important in the big picture . . .
>

It would be important if it existed, but it doesn't, so it isn't.

- Jed

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.
>

You misunderstood. I meant that the calorimetry is so bad you could not
confirm 1 MW unless you saw the customer machine. Actually, every
indication is that there is no excess heat. So perhaps I should say, the
only possible remaining proof of 1 MW would be seeing the customer machine.

With properly done calorimetry, yes, it is possible to confirm 1 MW.
Although even with that you would still want to see the customer machine as
a reality check. You sure as heck would not accept a result when the fluid
goes out of the room in one pipe and comes in another, without seeing the
entire circuit! That is absurd.

No one would pay $89 million without doing every reasonable reality check
and method of verification.

- Jed

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 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.

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 just remembered that this 1MW test did not use the reactors
of related to the HotCat, which it is what MFMP, Parkhomov, and the
hundreds of tests reproduces. What happens inside the container is still a
mystery.

2016-05-18 12:15 GMT-03:00 Jones Beene :

>
> Although there are strong hints of an anomaly, the slight thermal gain is
> still in the noise level - and Alan makes no claim for COP>1. There was a
> single (likely) bremsstrahlung burst, which would be a “smoking gun” but
> that has not been reproduced. It is highly probable that there is indeed
> slight gain, as most of the attendees thought - but there is no scientific
> proof of it. This particular setup understates positive results, but it is
> wrong to suggest that MFMP has proved that gain exists….
>
>
>

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

2016-05-18 Thread Jones Beene

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 –superior in data to anything 
we have seen from Rossi or anyone else. Alan has another run planned after this 
one (ver 5.3). He is getting great assistance from Mark Jurich. 

 

Although there are strong hints of an anomaly, the slight thermal gain is still 
in the noise level - and Alan makes no claim for COP>1. There was a single 
(likely) bremsstrahlung burst, which would be a “smoking gun” but that has not 
been reproduced. It is highly probable that there is indeed slight gain, as 
most of the attendees thought - but there is no scientific proof of it. This 
particular setup understates positive results, but it is wrong to suggest that 
MFMP has proved that gain exists….

 

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. There is no evidence in 
anything he has done for more than that, and there is evidence of some gain at 
Lugano, despite the sloppiness of the Levi team. 

 

But that low level gain, and as important as it could be scientifically - is 
not tolerable for Rossi’s financial needs. Follow the bucks. This is where it 
turns ugly… and not just for Rossi.

 

Let’s make it clear that IH is partly to blame. If Rossi has any gain at all 
and demonstrated it, IH is then at fault for not admitting that there is some 
gain, instead of what they claim is no gain. That could be legal posturing, but 
their attitude affects the entire field – which is what we should be most 
concerned about on this forum – rather than who is scamming who. 

 

IH could hire competent engineers to reproduce slight gain- except this step 
would be seen as a partial admission that Rossi has something of value. The 
crux of the situation is that a low level of gain, whatever it is – is 
scientifically important in the big picture, but is far from enough to satisfy 
the megabucks terms of the contract – and thus Rossi did what he has always 
done – he cheated. 

 

This will not end well for Rossi or Penon, nor for IH. We can only hope that 
the episode will not kill off the entire field and the 27 years of slow 
progress. There is clearly valid technology in LENR, but the problem, as 
always, is that it is low gain, and it will remain that way until someone 
figures out why there is any gain at all.

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 have been other occasions. There may have been something there at
some point. The first set of tests done by Levi were pretty good. They
would have to be repeated many times with better instruments before we can
be sure.

There may have been some excess heat at some point but there is not any
excess heat with this 1 MW device in Florida.

In every case that I know of, including this one, Rossi's methods have been
sloppy and unconvincing.

> And we don't know what he breached several times and why didn't they just
> cancel the whole thing only in the end.
>

I do not know what "breached" means here. You do not know why they did or
did not cancel. So what? That is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the
calorimetry.

> IH is not composed by stupid people, the technitian asked a question that
> was supposedly to be asked in the beginning.
>

It *was* asked at the beginning of the test!

> Were they being too generous after giving him 11 million?
>

The test in Florida was set up long after they gave him the $11 million.

> This is a big amount of money for a so dubious test.
>

Yes, it is. Finally we agree.

> So, I don't think so.
>

Rossi himself told you he did not allow people to look at the customer
equipment! He himself told you that I.H. insisted, but he refused. On what
possible basis can you "not think so"??? You have this information from
Rossi himself!

> I think that a discover of this magnitude could be just stolen or . . .
>

It is patented. If the technology works and the patent is properly written,
there is no need to steal it. Anyone can have it for free.

- Jed

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
people, the technitian asked a question that was supposedly to be asked in
the beginning. Were they being too generous after giving him 11 million?
This is a big amount of money for a so dubious test. So, I don't think so.
I think that a discover of this magnitude could be just stolen or, what is
more likely, IH was not given what was its share part, which was nearly
everything, since they had the technology in their hands.

2016-05-18 11:25 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> There is nothing to steal.
>
>

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 them. As they said in the press release, Rossi "repeatedly breached his
agreements."

Believe me, they made their views quite clear to Rossi. He only reported
this one example, but this dispute has been underway from the start.

That would not be "cheating" in any case. An expert should be given any
information he asks for at any stage in the investigation. There is no
justification for withholding access to the customer's 1 MW equipment.

> This kind of requirement goes to an endless loop of questions which ends
> in IH claiming something impossible to do.
>

For you to suggest that evaluating the customer's equipment is somehow
unreasonable, or part of an endless loop, is preposterous. You are
mesmerized by Rossi and his absurd claims.

> It's easier to suppose IH did steal tech from Rossi.
>

There is nothing to steal.

- Jed

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 measurements would disagree.

I have made many mistakes doing calorimetry, such as the mistakes Mizuno
and I reported. I always report my errors and correct them, whereas Rossi
never corrects his, even when he almost kills people with a blocked hose.
The errors Mizuno and I made were somewhat subtle, and they were not
apparent until the reactor was recalibrated. Rossi's mistakes are blatantly
obvious to me and to I.H. Perhaps Mats does not see them, but I sure do.

The mistakes made by Defkalion were also blatantly obvious to Gamberale
once he was allowed to do a normal verification test. Rossi's 1 MW reactor
test is similar. I am not saying he made the same mistake. He made a whole
bunch of mistakes! But they are equally easy to discover once you do it
right.

- Jed

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 Rothwell :

> , "At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH"
>
>

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 refused. What happened next will be part of the court
case, I expect.

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

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 not put words in my mouth. I said
that when you do not have access to a 1 MW plant you cannot be sure it is
real. I said that Rossi's data is a god-awful mess and it needs to be
confirmed. I said that no one would pay $89 million without confirming
there is 1 MW factory equipment in operation.

The fact that Rossi did not allow anyone in to see the factory equipment is
extremely suspicious, to say the least. It makes me think there was no
factory. There are several other reasons to think there was no factory;
i.e., apparently no one was in there, there was no noise, there is no
chimney, etc.

> Also, I have seen sufficient number of  reports of others finding
> anomalous heat to be persuaded LENR is real.   Others think so too. See
> www.lenrproof.com

LENR is real. Rossi's 1 MW reactor is not. Some of his previous devices may
have been producing excess heat. It is difficult to judge because his
methods are so sloppy.

- Jed

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 agreement was signed.

This does not make any sense. Anyone can analyze the data. You walk in the
door, look at the instruments, and do the math. An experienced HVAC
engineer can tell the glance whether there is excess heat from flow
calorimetry. I can figure it out in ten minutes even without going there.

A mistake in calorimetry does not come from numbers themselves. It is about
how accurate they are, and what they mean. That is, the choice of
instruments, the placement, configuration, calibration methods,
verification methods and so on. Look at the mistakes in calorimetry made by
Mizuno and I with his setup, or the mistakes made at Lugano and by others
in various reports. The numbers are right; the methods and interpretations
were wrong.

> The primary reason before the test, to prevent IH from doing their own
> evaluation . . .

You cannot help but do your own evaluation. The answer is right in front of
you.

- Jed

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 all the access he wanted.

- Jed

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 his numbers. They do not agree with his analysis. They think
his data and instruments show no excess heat. I have seen a sample of the
data and I agree there is no excess heat.

- Jed

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 improved my
instrumentation and methods.  Same for Brian Albiston.  There is no
convincing / repeatable demonstration to of COP > 1.  With respect to Bob,
this is really reaching and hoping.  IH  was supposedly given everything
they needed to replicate, and they were unable to.  The tests of Rossi's
devices fall into the same category with other purported positive
replications:  No convincing evidence of excess heat or not repeatable /
poor methodology / poor disclosure (e.g., Parkhomov, Songshen Jiang,
me356).  There has not been one high quality repeatable experiment
demonstrating excess heat.

If you have been following replication efforts, MFMP and Brian Albiston
have tried about every suggestion.

I'll not try to convince you further.  All the information is there for you
to make up your own mind.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:10 AM Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> 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 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.
>>
>
>

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 output.  That is clearly not true.


Also, I have seen sufficient number of  reports of others finding 
anomalous heat to be persuaded LENR is real.   Others think so too. See 
www.lenrproof.com

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 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.
>

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 Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:39 AM Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> 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

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