10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

The point's Rossi's management's worse than the million monkeys twiddlin ECats' labview knobs gedankenexperiment. Out of that teeming noise there'd be the occasional pigs finding acorns and proper experimenters putting out proper freakin data and pink unicorns going incognito and keyboard warriors finding some way to show how everyone but them was an idiot all along.

Instead of... invisible factories and invisible "major" deals and whatever other secrets du jour Rossi pulls outta his... top hat.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

GIThruster,
Certification of any kind is a red herring, though. Not worth the time to post as it doesn't mean a thing.
Not true. When high energy/temperatures/storage is involved the tests have to cover what happens in the worst case. That can't be done without the product actually working.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

The SGS certificate records that it has been issued for the E-Cat 1 MW.

It is listed as having a maximum electric power in of 200 kW, and potential power out as 1 MW, and states that “The voluntary verification has occurred by means of inspection visit carried out from the manufacturer with a satisfactory outcome. The results of the visit are on Technical Reports RVV.DM.MI12.003 and RVV.DM.MI12.004.

The document is dated 05/09/2012

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/up ... p-1107.pdf

stefanbanev
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am

Post by stefanbanev »

parallel wrote:GIThruster,
Certification of any kind is a red herring, though. Not worth the time to post as it doesn't mean a thing.
Not true. When high energy/temperatures/storage is involved the tests have to cover what happens in the worst case. That can't be done without the product actually working.
It's true but it does not require COP to be necessarily above one. Anyway, at this point the most productive is just to watch how LENR saga is going to unravel; most speculations have been exercised; the specific & accurate technical infor from someone who gets in circle with $$ to evaluate technology unlikely may appear here. Besides, the bunch of skeptic trolls here makes such discussion hardly a productive...
Last edited by stefanbanev on Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

paperburn1
Posts: 2457
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Post by paperburn1 »

parallel wrote:The SGS certificate records that it has been issued for the E-Cat 1 MW.

It is listed as having a maximum electric power in of 200 kW, and potential power out as 1 MW, and states that “The voluntary verification has occurred by means of inspection visit carried out from the manufacturer with a satisfactory outcome. The results of the visit are on Technical Reports RVV.DM.MI12.003 and RVV.DM.MI12.004.

The document is dated 05/09/2012

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/up ... p-1107.pdf
Read the fine print of the document, for those not versed in lawyer, this said , not to be used for commercialization because we are only acknowledging the fact the paperwork was filed and is not a certification or to be use as certification or construed as such as to be used for advertising of said product . We verify no testing or facts and figures as true.
Last edited by paperburn1 on Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Ladajo,
<Full-o-Shyte-meter pegs (...again)>
Does it happen every time you post? Might be some correlation there.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

parallel wrote:Ladajo,
<Full-o-Shyte-meter pegs (...again)>
Does it happen every time you post? Might be some correlation there.
Read other threads. It only happens when he posts about Rossi.

Hmmm, I wonder why...

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

tomclarke,
Read other threads. It only happens when he posts about Rossi.
You mean he only gets it wrong with Rossi? Amazing.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

parallel wrote:The SGS certificate records that it has been issued for the E-Cat 1 MW.

It is listed as having a maximum electric power in of 200 kW, and potential power out as 1 MW, and states that “The voluntary verification has occurred by means of inspection visit carried out from the manufacturer with a satisfactory outcome. The results of the visit are on Technical Reports RVV.DM.MI12.003 and RVV.DM.MI12.004.

The document is dated 05/09/2012

http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/up ... p-1107.pdf
Did you forget to read the entire document again? It's an acknowledgement of filing, not a certification. All that is listed is a series of claims by Rossi.
Image

We want more flake!

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

I predict that Parallel will once again ignore inconvenient fact, as well as the fact he once again did not read fully nor understand what he was talking about. Show us the "certification" Parallel. Oh, still can't?

Authorization to place a certifying agency's "logo" on a product can (and is provided when needed) be done without a public issuance of trade secret revealing testing. The certifying agency merely affirms that the "device" was tested to standards 1, 2, 3, 7 etc. and that it met requirements, and thus is authorized to carry the certification mark. In the internal files (for insurance purposes) the full results are maintained IAW with NDA specifications. If you are in doubt, take a tour of the UL database. You will find some products listed, but without full test results and methodolgy revealing its guts. It will be listed as compliant.

Rossi has no certifications. Just like he has no agreements with UoB to test his stuff. (See UoB's latest press release stating once again,..."we have no relationship with Rossi...but if he gives us his stuff we will test it on the condition that all testing and results are made public...")
Rossi is a mass production misdirection machine. He can't even keep track of what he says he spews so much crap. The one thing you can rely on with Rossi is that whatever he says, it will contradict something he has said before, or will say later.

His dad needs to take him out back to the woodshed. He has been naughty.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

I'll bet the Full-o-Shyte-meter bent the needle when it pegged with this one and ScottL's post next to yours.

What is so difficult to understand with a certificate headed with Certificate of Compliance? Does that really sound like an application to you?

Then again you are quoting UL not SGS.

I will have to stop feeding the trolls again.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Compliance to what?
Did you look up what it is "complying" with?
Did you happen to notice that it was a voluntary submission by Rossi to them and they (SGS) did no testing?
...Any holder of this document is advised that information contained hereon reflects the Company's findings at the time of its intervention only and within the limits of the Clients instructions, if any...The SGS stamp and signature merely represents receipt of the document and SGS makes no representations as to the accuracy, adequacy and/or completeness of third party test/laboratory results, reports or certifications. Any holder of this document is advised that the information contained hereon is limited to visual examination of the safety and readily accessible portions of the consignment only...The Company is not responsible for the condition or calibration of appartus, instruments and measuring devices used, the analysis methods applied the qualifications, actions or ommissions of the third party's personnel or the analysis results.

Did you notice the most important statement on the entire document?
...This Certificate does not constitute a "product certification" and cannot, in any way, be used for commerical purposes and / or advertising by the company on whose behalf the certificate was issued...
I am thinking not.

SGS is proudly reporting that they went on Rossi's request and "saw" Rossi's machine, it looked safe, and that they saw some "third party" do some stuff which they are not responsible for in anyway in regards to purpose, content, or accuracy.

In short, SGS officially says, "We saw Rossi's thing, it did not look dangerous in accordance with Directive 2006/42/EC, and there was someone else there that did some stuff. Any numbers that we happen to quote were provided to us by Rossi and the third party. And, in closing, this is not a certification in any way."

Do you get it yet?
If you have any doubts about what Directive 2006/42/EC is, you can read it yourself. Of particular note is Article I section 2(c) (which makes Rossi a liar again) on page 4, and the Annexes which begin on page 12.
Directive
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

And, I ask you once again, can you provide a Certificate?
The document (which I already knew existed by the way) you provided specifically states it is NOT a certification and is not to be used as one.

Standing by for you to provide something that is not meaningless in regards to Rossi and his circus.

I really hope you have invested money in Rossi, so that when you do eventually come to terms with Rossi being full of shyte, it hurts enough for you to get learned good about self-blinding faith. You let yourself get duped by him again with this SGS play.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Post by Stubby »

what I said previously was with respect to a SPECIAL FIELD INSPECTION

having finally wasted some time to check out parallel's provide link, it is clear that this somewhat like that. Inspectors verify components for compliance to safety regulations. THEY DO NOT VERIFY OPERATION.

And as clearly stated in the relevant directive provided by ladajo, they specifically do not check for radiation.


parallel you are a true zealot, a true believer. like tom cruise or john travolta

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

For those who may not follow every nuance of LENR activity, here is a pretty balanced summary of what has been happening over the last several months in WIRED:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... old-fusion

I think the article is fair in stating that there has been an acceleration of interest in LENR of late.

Post Reply