The problem of insurance et certification is a key fact.
for me it is a way for the incumbent business to block the spread of that
technology to the public, and privatize the benefits to the usual big
players.
as you see many comments, this is in process. the LENR is not event proved,
and however
Robert Lynn wrote:
Without appropriate certification you cannot get equipment insured.
> Installing uncertified equipment anywhere exposes the company
> manufacturing, marketing, installing or owning the equipment up to all
> sorts of potentially devastating legal repercussions in the event of a
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Robert Lynn
> wrote:
> > Exactly. Besides which others have claimed to have checked and found no
> > records of his having CE compliance.
>
> Yeah, that was me. But, you need to know under which company i
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Robert Lynn
wrote:
> Exactly. Besides which others have claimed to have checked and found no
> records of his having CE compliance.
Yeah, that was me. But, you need to know under which company it is
registered. I tried all the obvious ones with no hits.
> On
Exactly. Besides which others have claimed to have checked and found no
records of his having CE compliance.
On top of which it is obvious to any engineer that looks that his design
and construction would not comply with even the European Pressure Equipment
Directive, (Oct 6th test was a flagrant
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> Rossi claims he has CE certification.
>From JNoP:
"Andrea Rossi October 23rd, 2011 at 8:08 AM Dear Dario: The CE for the
business to business has been done. For household applications not
yet. Warm Regards, A.R . "
Of course, he could al
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Robert Lynn
wrote:
> Without appropriate certification you cannot get equipment insured.
Rossi claims he has CE certification.
T
---
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:54:43 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat production in the US has begun
> From: maryyu...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Steven Johnson > wrote:
>
> From MY
>
> If Rossi
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Craig Haynie wrote:
> I don't think it would be considered a nuclear device.
Calling it a nuclear device would be the utmost irony!
"Sorry, you cannot being that nuclear device into the US."
"Uh, no, there is no such thing as a cold fusion nuclear device."
Stu
On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 11:53 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Daniel Rocha
> wrote:
> Why should it be in a populated area?
>
> Far as I know, all of Massachusetts is a populated area. And you
> can't make nuclear devices in the US without all sorts of per
f't Depts... or,
they'll just make up some double-talk and do what they want anyway.
-mark
-Original Message-
From: Steven Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 12:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat production in the US
From Robert Leguillon wrote:
> I contend that the action cannot be prohibited without being acknowledged.
>
Spot on.
Thats what is so amusing about it.
Svj -orionworks.com
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Robert Leguillon <
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If there is no measurable radiation, no possession or disposal of
> controlled substances, how could it be illegal (currently)?
>
You forget: Rossi claims gamma radiation during operation which, he says,
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> Why do you assume that is in Massachusetts?
>
>
Because Rossi said that was where he was planning to produce E-cats in the
US. I don't think it matters. I don't think he can make nuclear fusion
reactors in the US without all sorts of permi
or
disposal of controlled substances, how could it be illegal (currently)? I
contend that the action cannot be prohibited without being acknowledged.
I'd love to get comments from anyone with a legal background.
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:54:43 -0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat production in the US ha
Why do you assume that is in Massachusetts?
2011/12/10 Mary Yugo
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> Why should it be in a populated area?
>>
>
> Far as I know, all of Massachusetts is a populated area. And you can't
> make nuclear devices in the US without all sort
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Steven Johnson
wrote:
> From MY
>
> If Rossi is producing nuclear fusion reactors in the US, how was this
>> authorized without an opportunity for public comment?
>
>
> Strikes me as an odd comment from MY, the staunch skeptic.
>
> Damned if you do. Damned if you
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> Why should it be in a populated area?
>
Far as I know, all of Massachusetts is a populated area. And you can't
make nuclear devices in the US without all sorts of permits.
From MY
> If Rossi is producing nuclear fusion reactors in the US, how was this
> authorized without an opportunity for public comment?
Strikes me as an odd comment from MY, the staunch skeptic.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
Svj - orionworks.com
Why should it be in a populated area?
2011/12/10 Mary Yugo
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>> If his customer is the military, perhaps he doesn't need authorization...
>>
>>
> The military may not need authorization to use a device but he needs
> authorizations galo
James Bowery wrote:
> Your interpretation of "begun" should be constrained by the context of the
> original question in which "begun" is contrasted with "starting up".
> However, your interpretation of "begun" was not so constrained. I suggest
> you restate your argument with that in mind.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> If his customer is the military, perhaps he doesn't need authorization...
>
>
The military may not need authorization to use a device but he needs
authorizations galore for a manufacturing plant/factory. For example,
General Atomic near San
If his customer is the military, perhaps he doesn't need authorization...
2011/12/10 Mary Yugo
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <
> aussieguy.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mr. Rossi
>>
>> Has production begun yet in your US facilities? Or are they still
>> starting up?
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
wrote:
> Mr. Rossi
>
> Has production begun yet in your US facilities? Or are they still
> starting up?
>
Does Rossi have production facilities in the US? If so where? And how do
we know? Has anyone ever been invited to see and report on
Your interpretation of "begun" should be constrained by the context of the
original question in which "begun" is contrasted with "starting up".
However, your interpretation of "begun" was not so constrained. I suggest
you restate your argument with that in mind.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:03 AM,
On a cautionary note: Rossi's terse response strikes me as a matter of
personal interpretation. With Rossi, personal interpretation can mean a lot
of different scenarios. I find myself asking, how is Rossi choosing to
exploit the word "begun" in this particular case.
Maybe it actually does means R
26 matches
Mail list logo
