tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post9208119954688573181..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: OCT 21, 2016 LENR WITH HELP FROM ED STORMS AND DOUG MARKERGeorgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-61402219593587942002016-10-24T22:39:27.164-07:002016-10-24T22:39:27.164-07:00Pweet,
Your opening remark claiming my opposition ...Pweet,<br />Your opening remark claiming my opposition to Krivit's case against Rossi plus your claim this occurred over 5 years is a complete fabrication. It is not true at all. Your recall of my comments about Rossi obviously relates back to the blog site called ecat news and I am saying that your recall is seriously flawed, so flawed in fact that it must be deliberate.<br /><br />The only interpretations I can place on your intentions are you are trolling. You are putting up a false premise without a shred of evidence nor any realistic way to refute it. <br /><br />So, am not interested in taking your bait.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />DSM<br /><br />dsjm1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07779323885237127015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-24552215724087052602016-10-23T00:56:44.756-07:002016-10-23T00:56:44.756-07:00I am not asking anything without serious reasons a...I am not asking anything without serious reasons and complete justification. it is not asbout Rossi in this case<br />peterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-89069518769281170632016-10-22T23:23:11.650-07:002016-10-22T23:23:11.650-07:00Thanks Peter. I would be interested to read it, bu...Thanks Peter. I would be interested to read it, but it would be better if you posted it here for all to read.<br />It will be wasted if it's only for my 'enlightenment'.<br />Hoping to hear,<br />Pweet.Pweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09197878743499245329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-69641940277222746822016-10-22T10:53:15.577-07:002016-10-22T10:53:15.577-07:00dear Pweet,
if you want explanations write to my p...dear Pweet,<br />if you want explanations write to my peter.gluck@gmail.com ddress<br />petereAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-41590104631347772242016-10-22T04:13:45.703-07:002016-10-22T04:13:45.703-07:00Frank Acland
October 21, 2016 at 9:38 PM
Dear Andr...Frank Acland<br />October 21, 2016 at 9:38 PM<br />Dear Andrea,<br /><br />How many QuarkX reactors have you and your team made so far?<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Frank Acland<br /><br />Andrea Rossi<br />October 21, 2016 at 10:30 PM<br />Frank Acland:<br />Since March 2016, when the first prototype has been made, we produced several tens of them, most of them burnt before having resistent prototypes. Presently we are testing three of them, but one is winning the competition.<br />Now we focus on the winner to get the Sigma 5.<br />Warm Regards,<br />A.R.sam northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268558018307793474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-30341391782321652852016-10-22T01:42:46.153-07:002016-10-22T01:42:46.153-07:00Krivit's assessment of Rossi's ecat was ma...<br />Krivit's assessment of Rossi's ecat was made on the basis of the original version which had allegedly been heating a factory for two years prior to the demonstration being done for Krivit to see. <br />On that basis he had every expectation that he would see a working reactor then and there, working to the claimed specifications at the time he saw it, not some years down the track in a different guise, or by some other person who might be claiming to have replicated it. He gave his honest appraisal of it and in his expert opinion, it was not working as per the claims of Mr Rossi. In fact I think his opinion was that it was not working at all. That's what he reported, and Doug M. is reasonable enough to concede that Krivit is one of the more knowledgeable people in the area of lenr, so one would expect his assessment to carry more weight than say, the opinion of a casual remote onlooker such as the numerous people who have denigrated his opinion over the years since. <br />I will point out the obvious that today, many years later, IH are claiming the exact same thing and yet still some people refuse to believe that consistent with Krivit's assessment, the current assessment of IH is in all probability, true. <br /> <br />Whether or not others might have later claimed to produce excess energy from replicating later versions of the ecat is besides the point of whether or not Mr Rossi managed to show an ecat to Krivit which was actually working. Krivit's assesment was that what he saw was not working when he saw it and that's what he reported.<br />Some have made the claim that the reaction does not always occur and that it apparently wasn't at the time Steve Krivit saw it, but usually did. If that was the case it should have been obvious to Mr Rossi that on that occasion it was not working, in much the same way that it was not working when demonstrated to Mats Lewan, but in both cases, in fact in all cases, Mr Rossi has claimed the device was stable and working to specifications. I think that indicates that there is no discernible difference between occasions when the ecat is working and when it is not. The only difference is in the eye of the beholder. That's what magic is all about; being able to fool the beholder. Krivit was not fooled, thus on that occasion the device was apparently not working. Others seeing the same demonstration may have concluded it was working. Magic tricks are like that. <br /><br />I will also point out that none of the claimed replications by others have been verified as being high COP reactions by any third parties. Until they are, they are of similar value to all the claims of Mr Rossi.Pweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09197878743499245329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-10732348067299204072016-10-21T22:02:27.722-07:002016-10-21T22:02:27.722-07:00Rossi's technical approach has been replicated...Rossi's technical approach has been replicated by at least three experimenters that I know about and maybe more that I don't know about. These replications provide grounds to question the opinion of the Rossi detractors. It also provides grounds to keep an open mind about the efficacy of the nickel/lithium/hydrogen LENR reaction that we call LENR+Axilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190120527431077518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-46845930970621968492016-10-21T20:03:38.375-07:002016-10-21T20:03:38.375-07:00Regarding the above article on the book by Steve K...Regarding the above article on the book by Steve Krivit;<br />It puzzles me that Doug M. can make the statement <br />"Krivit has always impressed me as one of the sharpest minds in the CF/LENRs field and a tenacious researcher who was and is intent on getting to a 'truth' even at the expense of personal relationships with those he deals with along the way."<br />and then constantly argue against Krivits assessment of the Rossi ecat over the last five years, particularly in view of the fact that Krivit had been to Italy, been to Rossi's 'laboratory', spoken in length to Mr Rossi, seen the ecat supposedly working, taken considerable videos of the event to review later, and then after all this, came to the conclusion the ecat was doing nothing out of the ordinary.<br />He then went on to produce and post a video detailing his very clear and valid reasons for coming to the conclusion he did.<br />If Doug's assessment of Krivit was that he was a bumbling incompetent fool then I can understand his constant argument over Krivit's asssement. But the constant argument does not seem at all consistent with his above statement that,<br /> "Krivit has always impressed me as one of the sharpest minds in the CF/LENRs field and a tenacious researcher who was and is intent on getting to a 'truth'".<br />Why not just accept that Krivits conclusion on the Rossi 'magic' is and always was an accurate assessment?<br />Pweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09197878743499245329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-51775941831243719922016-10-21T14:26:34.236-07:002016-10-21T14:26:34.236-07:00Ed Storms has never taken reactor meltdown serious...Ed Storms has never taken reactor meltdown seriously in his formulation of LENR theory. But over time, reactor meltdown has been shown to be a major factor in the development of LENR technology by multiple LENR experimenters.<br /><br />People who have successfully produced a gainful LENR reaction have first started out with a succession of reactor meltdowns. Rossi has stated that in the beginning of his development, he melted down hundreds of his reactors. <br /><br />ME356 has also explained how he melted down his reactors until he figured out how to moderate the LENR reaction. <br /><br />Recently, another new and sucessful Rossi replicator has melted down multiple reactors until he figured out how to control the reaction.<br /><br />And let us not forget Alexander Parkhomov who in the beginning accumulated a bushel of melted reactor fragments of his first reactor attempts.<br /><br />If Ed Storms does not want to deal with a major behavioral characteristic of the LENR development cycle; if Ed wants to ignore what is happening during reactor meltdown; how does Ed's theories advance the understanding of the Rossi LENR+ method. <br /><br />Even Pd/D technology has seen electrolytic LENR systems melt down, but Ed's theories cannot even explain this condition.<br /><br />This basic question that Ed must answer in this theory is what produces the LENR reaction, how does this reaction gets out of control and how is the reaction moderated to a steady state condition when this supercritical condition sets in.<br /><br /> Axilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190120527431077518noreply@blogger.com