10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[KitemanSA]

Prima facie fraud - or Rossi has perjured himself to US NRC officials?

What US NRC officials please?

[KitemanSA]

It really is a shame that Rossi has clearly stated before the entire Florida Fiasco that he had a up and running factory here in the states producing Ecats. More than once.

Reality sucks for you, doesn't it?

First, I do recall having seen statements that Rossi had a Factory in Florida "for the production of E-Cats" (IIRC). Boeing maintains factories around the world "for the production" of their 777 and other planes. That doesn't mean that the ENTIRE item was manufactured at each an every plant.

Second, even if the factory in Florida did manufacture complete E-Cats before the discussions between Rossi and the Florida BRC, why is that necessarily a contradiction? What exactly did the BRC report state? IIRC, it said something along the lines of "all production is CURRENTLY" in Europe.

Third, given the appearant mission of the FBRC, the case may have devolved into "not producing reactors / radioactive material per our charter. Production of any such reactors are currently in Europe ... if anywhere. Any future plans to build in Florida subject to UL listing. Not our issue. "

So,
WERE built in the US (maybe)
Factory in US being totally revamped for major "home unit" production" during which time FBRC interview when the message was transmitted "not CURRENTLY in the US" but plans to produce in future.

And the lie is?

[KitemanSA]

UL engineers do not need working prototype. For example, any of Rossi's demo devices, which did not work, would suffice. UL is about safety, not performance.

Funny, I thought UL was about safety of a performing unit.

I HOPE no UL tester would pass a unit rated to 25kW output seeing only 0.5kW input and 0.5kW output. How would he know that the unit at RATED load was safe?

[KitemanSA]

You continue to be delusional.

Parallel,
Might I suggest that you tone your rhetoric down a bit? Stating that someone IS delusional tends to get you ignored. Perhaps he seems to be maintaining a delusion.

[KitemanSA]

My Stink-o-meter is pegged.

Now assuming that you are not lying to yourself, this is perhaps the first FACTUAL statement you have made regarding this issue!

[KitemanSA]

But of course, we can not know, because Rossi is on record stating that the device produces NO RADIATION. But then again, he is on record stating that IT DOES PRODUCE RADIATION. So which is it? Where are the 511MeV gammas? Is shielding needed or not?

Please quote him directly on this. I suspect you are misreading his statements, or correctly reading someone else's miss read.

Ordinary Ni will "produce" radiation. My recollenction of the statement was that the E-Cat produced no radioactive waste and no radiation above background. This leaves open to question "which background"? He also suggests that be believes that the gamma is mostly contained by the shield.

In the Krivit video there seemed to be a small variation in gamma reading when he removed the tip from near the E-Cat. What this means is unknown since I did not see a comparable reading with the machine "off". But given the small reading, EITHER there is much less reactivity inside the machine than the amount claimed or there is another explanation for the low gamma levels. The shield is NOT sufficient on its own.

[tomclarke]

UL engineers do not need working prototype. For example, any of Rossi's demo devices, which did not work, would suffice. UL is about safety, not performance.

Funny, I thought UL was about safety of a performing unit.

I HOPE no UL tester would pass a unit rated to 25kW output seeing only 0.5kW input and 0.5kW output. How would he know that the unit at RATED load was safe?

(1) UL will test safety, not, I believe operating performance. But they have many categoies, I'm willing to be corrected in specific cases.

(2) Rossi can give them a prototype which he claims is working and they can certify it safe. that says nothing about whether it actually works.

(3) I doubt very much UL would do calorimetry on output to determine output power, unless operating output power was part of tests.

[tomclarke]

Prima facie fraud - or Rossi has perjured himself to US NRC officials?

What US NRC officials please?

I may have got the name wrong. The guys who came to check for radiation I thought were from US Nuclear Regulatory Commission? But maybe some other branch of govt. You can check...

[tomclarke]

Every substantive statement (that has been checked) has been proven false" is enough for me.

You have not yet said you agree with this.

Actually, I think I said, or at least implied, that I do NOT agree with this.
I have not yet seem one substantive statement that he has made been that has been proven false, no matter how you re-arrange the parentheses after the fact. I have asked for one. Please.

I'm beginning to suspect that you do not understand the English language, since I've explained my comment above and you persistently avoid the issue.

You are asking for an example of a substantive statement that has been proven false. But that does not prove my statement. Nor is it needed to prove my statement.

I claim (strongly) that EVERY substantive statement Rossi has made which has been checked is proved false.

Now, either you can disprove this by giving me one checked substantive statement proven true, or my statement stands. That is what "Every" means.

If there are no substantive statements my statement is trivially true. If there are no substantive statements which anyone has been able to check it is also trivially true. In both cases Rossi would seem more hot air than substance.

Let me reiterate: the form of my statement does not require me to give a positive example. This would not prove it, and is also not necessary. It requires you to disprove it with JUST ONE counterexample, or shut up.

BTW - we will disagree about the 4 examples I give. I reckon (as was generally thought when they were made) that they ARE substantive statements, we agree that if they are they have been proved false, but you reckon the mean something weaker in which case they have not been proved false. So I expect any more examples I give will be similarly reinterpreted by you as non-substantive. That is OK - my statement stands whichever way you cut it.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

UL will test safety, not, I believe operating performance. But they have many categoies, I'm willing to be corrected in specific cases.

Even though in an earlier post you admitted you were wrong, you still try to wiggle out of it in most unbecoming ways.

How do you suppose UL tests a device that produces considerable energy without checking the safety precautions to stop it overheating or even blowing up, under adverse conditions? Not to mention checking the radiation level.

Secondly, you appear ignorant that NOTHING on the sample can be changed after approval? The test has to be performed on an example of the production device for the UL stamp to be valid.

As you clearly know nothing about UL procedures and further state you can't be bothered to look them up, why do you write about them?

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

UL will test safety, not, I believe operating performance. But they have many categoies, I'm willing to be corrected in specific cases.

Even though in an earlier post you admitted you were wrong, you still try to wiggle out of it in most unbecoming ways.

No. I just have not read the spec. I'm hoping somone else here knows. I doubt you do?

How do you suppose UL tests a device that produces considerable energy without checking the safety precautions to stop it overheating or even blowing up, under adverse conditions? Not to mention checking the radiation level.

Since no such devices have exoisted before, I guess new tests will have to be worked out. Don't you think? But UL is about safety, not how well the thing works.

Secondly, you appear ignorant that NOTHING on the sample can be changed after approval? The test has to be performed on an example of the production device for the UL stamp to be valid.

That would not bother Rossi. He still thinks his demo e-cats worked.

As you clearly know nothing about UL procedures and further state you can't be bothered to look them up, why do you write about them?

I know something about them, just not as much as is needed for a definitive answer. I comes down to whether an E-cat would be put into an existing category, or have a new set of tests all for itself.

Do you know? Other than calling me names, you don't seem to be contributing much...

[parallel]

tomclarke,

Do you know? Other than calling me names, you don't seem to be contributing much...

I wasn't calling you names, but pointing out the errors in what you wrote. You could confuse the pathoskeptics who are confused enough already.

If you don't know anything about UL procedures why do you write about them?

Having pointed out that the UL test has to be on the identical design to that being produced, why do you go on (and on) about Rossi being able to use an old demo sample that is quite different? Delusional doesn't quite cover it. I presume you missed the bit when Rossi stated the size of the proposed domestic E-Cat.

[tomclarke]

tomclarke,

Do you know? Other than calling me names, you don't seem to be contributing much...

I wasn't calling you names, but pointing out the errors in what you wrote. You could confuse the pathoskeptics who are confused enough already.

Having pointed out that the UL test has to be on the identical design to that being produced, why do you go on (and on) about Rossi being able to use an old demo sample that is quite different? Delusional doesn't quite cover it. I presume you missed the bit when Rossi stated the size of the proposed domestic E-Cat.

Parallel, I am judging Rossi by past behaviour (both Petroldragon and E-cats so far). Which means he does not know, or does not care, whether his stuff works. In which case his production prototype can be anything he claims he will produce. Frankly, there is zero evidence of any production as you know and contradictory statements about factories.

My point is that he can give UL any old bit of metal which he claims is a production prototype e-cat, get them to look at it, gain PR which will help the money to stay rolling in.

This seems blindingly obvious, so call me delusional if you like but I can't follow your thought processes. That has been a theme of this thread.

[tomclarke]

I wasn't calling you names, but pointing out the errors in what you wrote. You could confuse the pathoskeptics who are confused enough already.

Who are these confused pathoskeptics? Sure you are not projecting?

You have not yet found any errors. Only uncertainty about which UL tests the E-cat would have. I share that with everyone here, I guess.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

My point is that he can give UL any old bit of metal which he claims is a production prototype e-cat, get them to look at it, gain PR which will help the money to stay rolling in.

Sigh.

Once you state something you can't give it up no matter that even you find it is wrong.

UL would not accept "any old bit of metal" and the test is expensive and time consuming. Your delusion leads you to think someone would (or could) spend the money for a UL test on an old piece of metal and that would somehow convince large savvy investors not to test the device before parting with their money. That's ludicrous.

Next you will be telling us again that UL only tests for safety as if we didn't know that already.