- Click Here: Important eCat News Straight To Your Mail Box
22Passi Report
October 29, 2011Daniel Passeriini has posted his thoughts on the 1MW test. Although he is not technical, he further adds to the whole and is well worth reading. Of particular note, he gives us a list of those attending:
- Henry Billi – nuclear physicist
- Reymond Zreick – Focus magazine journalist
- Irene Zreick – Focus magazine journalist
- Mats Lewan – Ny Teknik magazine journalist
- Threshold Paul – Director of Radio Cape Town
- Sterling Allan – Director PENS (Pure Energy Systems Network)
- Peter Swensson – Associated Press reporter
- George Welcome – Associated Press photographer
- Daniele Passerini – 22 steps bloggers
- Pierre Clauzon – CNAM Paris engineer
- Irina Uzikova – National Research Nuclear University engineer in Moscow
- Joseph Levi – physical (observer University of Bologna)
- Loris Ferrari – physical (observer University of Bologna)
- David Bianchini – expert in radiation protection
- Guandalini Julian – Director EON Ltd.
- Andrea Rossi
- the brother of Andrea Rossi
- the grandson of Andrea Rossi
- Magdalene Pascucci
- Madeleine’s mother Pascucci
- Domenico Fioravanti – test engineers and testers of the system
- Andrea De Vita – physical Ansaldo Energia
- Italian, scientific advisor of an industrial group (has asked not to be reported)
- Italian, scientific advisor of an industrial group (has asked not to be reported)
- Italian, scientific advisor of an industrial group (has asked not to be reported)
- Italian, scientific advisor of an industrial group (has asked not to be reported)
- Swedish (?)
- Swedish (?)
- Swedish (?
Notice that the customer reps are all Italian.
[Thanks to Akira Shirakaw]
<< Previous Post -- -- Next post >>
Posted by admin
on October 29, 2011. Filed under Bologna,Hands-On,Media & Blogs,Tests & Demos.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Jim Cramer
October 29, 2011 at 5:05 am
Interesting….
Ron
October 29, 2011 at 5:24 am
Check out Andrea De Vita, working for Ansaldo Energia. If this company isn’t the mystery customer, they are likely very interested… From their web site…
“Ansaldo Energia is Italy’s leading producer of thermoelectric power plants, operating on international markets for customers ranging from Public Administration to Independent Power Producers and Industrial Clients.”
“Ansaldo Energia has excellent credentials, with an installed capacity of over 170,000 MW in more than 90 countries.”
These are playahs!
daniel maris
October 29, 2011 at 1:59 pm
170 GWs is huge! Yep – they sound like excellent candidates.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 8:08 am
Well, I went to bed at midnight, tired from the red wine.
Looking across all reports it is clear that (oh dear) there are still questions to be answered to give that final certainty.
All signs are good, for that many people to take him seriously any scam must be amazing.
Question, is there another 1mw unit built or being built, where is it, if he has just sold the only unit in existence, strange as many further customers are surely in the pipeline.
A confirmation of more units being produced would be very important.
Without a little more confirmation my champagne will stay where it is, the great benefit of these delays to final unarguable proof is that the champagne is slowly becoming vintage and gaining in value.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 8:30 am
A lesson to all skeptics, I have been successfully in business all my life and I am as hard nosed realist as you can rationally get.
The Rossi saga will pan-out as it will, no abuse, insults, debunking, dead brained denial, just sensible observation and encouragement until the TRUTH emerges, as it always will.
Most of us have a great desire for Rossi and Cold Fusion to succeed, so let’s just flow with things and let them take there course.
Anybody who would like a little distraction and considers themselves unbiased could take time out to examine the indisputable evidence for the reality of non man made UFO’s.
Jay2011
October 29, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Hi George,
Sounds like you are a better businessman than I am. To all my fellow travelers down Rossi Road, congratulations to the true believers if it turns out you have been right all along. Just as I respect your right to celebrate, I hope you can respect my right as a scientist to continue to defer judgment on this. As many of us have feared, little useful scientific data is likely to emerge from this 1MW demonstration. Once again, there’s not much to go on from a scientific point of view. From a social engineering point of view, we can certainly admire Rossi’s chutzpah. But a single customer, possibly pre-selected for a certain naivete (as were most of the rest of those in attendance), does not a product make. Nor does it yet change physics as we know it. Nor does it yet change the world. But you are certainly correct, the truth will eventually emerge independently of what any of us thinks.
I hope you will permit me and fellow scientists (you can call us skeptics if it makes you feel superior) to celebrate with you a little later, when and if the dust settles and a university confirms that Rossi’s claims are real.
Regarding UFO’s, I’m not certain there’s much science can say on this. Many of us hope that science can one day take our own species to the stars. Scientists also have been trying to listen for radio communication evidence of other life in the universe, so far to no avail. There’s nothing in science that states UFO’s cannot exist. But science cannot work with a collection of anecdotal accounts. Science is more about determining the nature of fundamental laws through a closed loop cycle of experiment, theoretical conjecture, predictions, and repeated experimentation. When it comes to UFO’s, what’s the experiment? But if you have an interesting link, I’d be happy to take a quick look.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Jay, sorry last thing I meant was that fair skepticism is wrong, Just not blind negativeness, as I am afraid infests much of science, and of course it is the responsibility of all scientists to put their own house in order.
I hope everybody can before to long celebrate together and move on.when final proof is clear.
SETI is of course nothing to do with UFO’s just a sensible but probably futile attempt to follow the Drake equation, but at least good open-minded science.
I will not add anything to aid research in to the UFO phenomenon except the French report http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm and say that other evidence to find, plenty of sources, is on the selected quality of reports from reliable witnesses and that every poor report of which there are many is easily discarded.
One must as always with scientific things take no notice of any establishment or academic utterings as their dismissal of any subject not directly attached to the Carnot Cycle is their idea of, follow the evidence.
Jay2011
October 29, 2011 at 7:10 pm
George, thanks for the link. I agree that good experimental observations, data, and evidence trump all else. I also agree with the general notion that one should be wary of too much establishment thinking, and of allowing others to do the thinking for you. Regarding Rossi, most scientists, if they are aware of his claims at all, would probably take one look at his demonstrations and dismiss him as a fraud. I am perhaps in the gullible minority in accepting the possibility of his claims being real, primarily because I was already familiar with the prior studies of Piantelli and Focardi. But unlike Piantelli, Rossi has chosen not to follow the path of science and appears more interested in making money. My guess is that if he has something real, it will still take a lot of scientific and engineering work to turn it into a safe and useful commercial technology.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm
That is what many closed minds in science use to brainwash objectivity out of science, (you said)”I am perhaps in the gullible minority in accepting the possibility of his claims being real,” many scientists are rightly afraid of being branded gullible or one of the many other degrading names attached to anything “beyond known science”.
Neither You nor I are gullible but I hope proudly open-minded enough to give any new science and the people involved a fair chance.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 8:46 am
Does not sound like a man who is unhappy with the result.
Andrea Rossi
October 29th, 2011 at 2:37 AM
WARNING- CORRECTIONS OF THE DRAFT OD THE TEST MADE ON OCTOBER 28TH ON THE E-CAT MW 1:
IN THE DRAFT, PLEASE CORRECT THE FOLLOWING TYPOS:
1- THE WEIGHT OF HYDROGEN HAS BEEN MEASURED IN GRAMS, NOT KG, AS ERRONEOUSLY WRITTEN
2- THE FLOW RATE OF THE WATER PUMPS HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 350 KG/HOUR FOR EACH OF THE 2 OPERATING PUMPS, NOT 700 EACH AS ERRONEOUSLY WRITTEN IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH, WHILE IS CORRECT THE FLOW RATE OF 350 KG/H WRITTEN IN THE FORMER PARAGRAPH, ON THE BASE OF WHICH THE CALCULATION OG THE PRODUCED ENERGY HAS BEEN MADE. JUST A TYPO.
SORRY, BUT YESTERDAY WE WERE VERY TIRED.
WARM REGARDS,
ANDREA ROSSI
P.S. TODAY I WILL PUBLISH THE COMMENTS, BUT WILL NOT ANSWER: SORRY, I TAKE A FULL DAY OFF, TOO TIRED. GOTTA PLAY TENNIS.
Peter Roe
October 29, 2011 at 10:26 am
Has anyone seen or heard a news report on any ‘mainstream’ channel, anywhere in the world?
Total silence on the UK’s BBC and nothing visible on the AP site. I hope that AP’s exclusive coverage does not mean that this amazing story will not see the light of day as far as the huddled masses are concerned.
Casey
October 29, 2011 at 1:10 pm
I think their exclusive expired at midnight the day of the test.
Peter Roe
October 29, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Unfortunately Peter Swensson was the only mainstream reporter present after at least one other was sent away, so AP still have an effective monopoly even if anyone else is now technically free to publish.
daniel maris
October 29, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Very sad that the mainstream media haven’t covered this. Even if it were a scam, surely it’s noteworthy, given the involvement of prestigious professors and so on.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 10:28 am
Peter nothing I can find, everybody still in bed after yesterday, we will still have to wait for things to unfold.
un passante
October 29, 2011 at 10:33 am
Ansaldo Energia -> FINMECCANICA. that would be huge. the fact they show some interest is already very good news.
some info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finmeccanica
“Finmeccanica S.p.A. is an Italian conglomerate. Finmeccanica is the second largest industrial group and the largest of the hi-tech industrial groups based in Italy. It works in the fields of defence, aerospace, security, automation, transport and energy. The company has offices in over 100 countries. It is partially owned by the Italian government, which holds about 30% of Finmeccanica’s shares.
Revenue €18.695 billion (2010)[1]
Operating income €1.232 billion (2010)[1]
Profit €493 million (2010)[1]
Total assets €31.08 billion (end 2010)[1]
Total equity €7.098 billion (end 2010)[1]
Employees 75,197 (end 2010)[1]
Through its Alenia Aeronautica subsidiary, Finmeccanica is a 21% shareholder of Eurofighter GmbH.”
Peter Roe
October 29, 2011 at 11:10 am
‘morning George. I’m feeling bit slow today, too.
Az posted a link to the customer’s test engineer’s report (http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk) on the previous thread, which I have commented on there. As an old thread here is much like yesterday’s newspaper, I’ll repeat the gist of it here:
The engineer’s report omits a great deal of potentially useful info, and there appear to be a couple of serious anomalies, but here is what can be gleaned from it.
The reactor (now containing 107 x 10 kW modules) was powered up at about 10:15 according to the spreadsheet data. However the test engineer’s report states that power input and output were measured betweeen 12:30 when it was it was ‘turned on’ and 18:00 when is was shut down. If I am reading the information correctly, then it is not clear how much input power was applied during the heating up phase, i.e., between 10:15 and 12:30.
Between 12:30 and 18:00 the reactor consumed 66 kWh and output 2635 kWh, as calculated from steam produced (crow already been eaten over my own prediction that primary oil cooling would be used!)
It is not stated in the report when the reactor entered self sustaining mode (or if it ever actually did) but the spreadsheet indicates stable output from 13:30 onward. Taking Rossi’s claim of a 470 kW output power at face value, then a total output of 2635 kWh implies full output for about 5.5 hours (12:30 to 18:00). The output does not level out until about 13:30 according to the spreadsheet.
The COP of 2635 shown in the engineer’s report is little curious. If the output (2635 kWh) was only measured during self-sustaining operation then the ratio of O:2635 he uses gives a COP of infinity. It is difficult on the info provided to reconcile a zero input with the recorded input of 66 kWh between 12:30 and 18:00. However, if the total I/O figures are used then the COP is actually 2635/66 = 40.
I am feeling a little thick headed today, so please correct any/all of the above if my interpretation of the data is complete bo**ocks.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 11:26 am
Peter, I am afraid as you say still a few uncertainties that are consistent with Rossi’s way, but it is his show and only the end result matters, more fun for us waiting for that final clinching evidence that removes all possible doubts.
I am sure that that we are witnessing a watershed in World events, absence makes the heart grow fonder.
Peter Roe
October 29, 2011 at 11:58 am
Personally George I don’t have any remaining doubts. Unless the engineer’s report is a complete fake then immediately usable cold fusion power is real. I am a bit concerned about the apparent disparity between the spreadsheet data and the written test report, but I’m sure that some more qualified observer can straighten this out, or perhaps Rossi will do so later.
However, what concerns me more is the apparent continuing ‘mainstream media’ silence about this. AP – probably the largest newswire service in the world – had a reporter and a photographer at the test. So why haven’t we heard anything at all? If you look on AP’s site there are plenty of items about events that occurred *after* the test finished, so why not this?
As far as final clinching evidence goes, I think we’ve probably had all we are going to get for quite some time. The ‘customer’ (whoever it is) will be an existing big player in the energy sector, and in view of the secrecy they have insisted on, are hardly likely to continue to keep the frogs informed. Rossi will likewise be bound by agreements that prevent him giving away further info, other than his summary of the test report after he has finished sleeping and playing tennis. So that is probably it as far as we are concerned, for the time being, that is until the ‘customer’ announces their plans to the world (and the stockmarkets) some time in the future.
Personally I’m praying (if an atheist can do that) that DGT, Piantelli etc. have something similar, and will make a move sometime soon.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Peter, the AP reporter told Sterling that it would take a few days to write up his report and get it through editorial censorship, so not long.
Rossi in theory has the cash to send the CAT to Bologna university for the tests, just the report that they are working on it will be a great leap forward.
Defkalion said news shortly, what ever that means.
They have still not answered my question, who developed your reactor core.
I think everyday will bring new input and it hopefully will be settled a bit quicker than Hot Fusion.
Peter Roe
October 29, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Its the ‘editorial censorship’ I’m worried about. AP is a 24/7 operation – there will always be editors available to tidy up and place on offer any stories/pictures sent in via email from their reporters. I can’t see why this would take more than an hour or two, unless an editor decides to double-check all the information provided by an inexperienced or untrustworthy reporter. If there’s an earthquake in Peru, we don’t hear about it in ‘a few days’ – the story will be available for purchase just a few hours after the event. Sorry but I remain concerned by the delay.
Sojourner Soo
October 29, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Morning all. I read somewhere, can’t recall where – perhaps Vortex, that the AP reporter said Rossi should win the Nobel for this. That’s a good sign, if true. Hope nobody has any serious hangovers.
CM Edwards
October 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm
I’m pleased to see that the predicted explosions did not occur. Rossi and Balogna are still in one piece.
Apparently, many hands make light work. The thermal fluctuations apparent in the spreadsheet data from earlier demos are smoothed out in the measurements for the 1 MW plant. The reported leaks suggest they did not hydrostatically test the equipment, and may still be using silicone sealant instead of real gaskets, but it’s encouraging that the device can run even with several units down.
It’s only been a day since the official stamp of approval. Popular science articles often take longer than that to get rolling. The majority of them only report results anyway, not breaking news. I am not surprised that AP has not carried a story on this yet. I am looking forward to it, though.
There is now good reason to expect people other than Rossi to take possession of e-cats and do their own testing. I’m hoping to see some of those results come out over the next ten months.
AB
October 29, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Well, this test certainly wasn’t the big revelation that some (including me) were hoping for. It was simply a demo for his customer of which we were allowed to get a glimpse.
The results are pretty impressive: the whole thing worked with only minor problems and the customer was convinced.
This should be the end of the status quo of uncertainty. Rossi now has the funds for independent testing, he has achieved his goal and the customer will speak. Eventual competitors to Rossi will now be hard pressed to make a move to demonstrate their abilities. Things should be moving forward more quickly now.
In the unlikely event that it’s a fraud, it should also soon become apparent.
Pekka Janhunen
October 29, 2011 at 2:19 pm
From Mats Lewan article:
“Rossi stated that an agreed contract research at the University of Bologna can now be initiated and that discussions on collaboration with Uppsala University can get started.”
So even if the commercial side keeps secretive, if the unit is tested by a university and scientifically proven, acceptance will follow. If the discussions are starting now with the universities, one could expect press releases perhaps 1-2 weeks from now at earliest.
arian
October 29, 2011 at 12:31 pm
article about e-cat test in french media.
http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/technologies/article/l-humanite-vat-elle-rentrer-dans-l-101743
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agoravox.fr%2Factualites%2Ftechnologies%2Farticle%2Fl-humanite-vat-elle-rentrer-dans-l-101743&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
Casey
October 29, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Irina Uzikova National Research Nuclear University engineer in Moscow
Very interesting, that’s a top college in Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Engineering_Physics_Institute_%28National_Research_Nuclear_University%29
Tony
October 29, 2011 at 1:44 pm
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/28/energy-catalzyer-extraordinary-scams-require-extraordinary-claims/
Anyone read this hate filled piece? I worry, as he claims friendship / association with Peter Svensson, the AP reporter.
AB
October 29, 2011 at 1:55 pm
I posted “Defkalion claims to be building their own e-cats now. I would hardly call that losing interest.” as comment to the article and he deleted it.
Peter Roe
October 29, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I also share your concern Tony. As the only ‘mainstream’ reporter present, Svensson is in a position to rubbish the whole test event, or even to try to bury it as far as the mainstream media are concerned. However Krivit’s comments seem to suggest a brief email exchange rather than anything else. I imagine Krivit is trying to make himself appear to be at the centre of things as usual.
But if nothing is published by AP by tomorrow at the latest, or if they publish Krivit style vitriol, we will know that this story is not going to reach the public at large through this channel. It was definitely an error of judgement not allowing at least one other mainstream reporter to attend. Then at least neither could have been certain that the other would not publish the story before the other.
Sojourner Soo
October 29, 2011 at 3:23 pm
A new Wired UK article: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/29/rossi-success
Peter Roe
October 29, 2011 at 4:10 pm
The reference in Wired’s article to ‘Colonel’ is very interesting. If you look at page one of the photo of the ‘engineer’s report’ you can see that a word near the top of the page has been scrubbed out using blue biro. I enlarged that area and eliminated blue pixels from the image to try to read the word. The scrubbed out word is in fact ‘Colonel’ as in Colonel-Engineer. This title is used in the Russian military – does anyone know if it is similarly used by the US military?
LCD
October 29, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Highly doubtful anybody from darpa would be called colonel. It’s not out of the realm of possibility though. However the company/customer could be a front for some other military entity. That has been done before.
It’s all fun speculation but we need to hear from some credible source. Everybody wants this to be true and you have to guard against that.
Ransompw
October 29, 2011 at 4:44 pm
The real difficult issue about all this is understanding the endgame. There are just so many unanswered questions. What is Rossi actually selling and for what and how much? I mean a 500Kw reactor, and one as clearly wanting some basic power plant engineering as his is hardly worth much. I mean it leaks for goodness sake and who knows how long it would function before breaking down. No one is going to pay Rossi much for his clever design of a power plant. They are going to pay for the little reactor that makes it all possible and only if he really has a little reactor that makes it all possible (which by the way seems tantalizingly real BUT).
And who is the mystery customer, it has to be someone who wants the technology and Rossi would be crazy to sell them his reactor for what a single one is worth because they would only want it to reverse engineer it and learn about the little reactor so they could compete with him. He has to make a goob of money selling the idea not the product or he will eventually lose out or so it seems to me. The whole thing is a collassal mystery and really makes no sense to me.
LCD
October 29, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Yeah as you and I discussed befote, how long does Rossi have before I and others figure out the secret catalyst. I mean if real let me tell you, my weekends ate booked because I will find his secret. Now multiply me by millions around the world…its just a matter of time. We have lots of clues.
Peter Roe
October 29, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Ransompw – As you say, the actual 1MW unit is not worth much as such. Its just a leaky prototype, although taking it apart would yield over 100 test units for company engineers to play with. I think the answer must be that the customer has bought into Rossi’s business as a partner, but obviously the terms can’t be known. In view of Rossi’s feeble patent protection, a contractual partnership with a big player would offer him much greater protection, and of course would also provide relatively huge R&D resources.
Ransompw
October 29, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Peter:
I agree, the customer has to be buying rights to the technology not a product. But then the customer would want to sell products and in so doing will have to reveal themselves. On the other hand the whole notion of all the secrecy just seems oddly inconsistent.
Casey
October 29, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Russian Colonel engineer makes sense since the other Russian is associated with that nuclear college linked to the military.
AB
October 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm
I don’t know about you guys but Col. Ing. Domenico Fioravanti sounds like a engineer that served or is serving in the Italian navy.
Plus all the representatives being Italian. Plus the secrecy.
Italian navy certainly sounds like a good bet.
pedrone
October 29, 2011 at 4:22 pm
As it’s well known, the catalyzer used by Andrea Rossi in his eCat is a secret, because he did not get yet the patent of his invention.
Ony two men in the world know the Rossi’s catalyzer used in his eCat: Guglinski and Andrea Rossi.
It seems Guglinski predicted correctly the catalyzer used in Rossi’s eCat in his paper ”How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion in Rossi-Focardi experiment”.
Look at their talk in the link of Rossi’s blog:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=462#comments
Wladimir Guglinski
July 14th, 2011 at 9:01 PM
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi,
as you decided do not publish in your blog my paper ”How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion in Rossi-Focardi experiment”, then I will publish it in the Peswiki website.
I think its publication in Peswiki will not cause any inconvenience to you.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
Andrea Rossi
July 15th, 2011 at 7:19 AM
Dear Wladimir Guglinski:
We have your paper in the list of articles to be published, it is just in line. Of course you can publish it where you want, can we publish it all the same when we will be ready, or you gave the copyright?
We need again your authorization to publish.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Wladimir Guglinski
July 15th, 2011 at 9:49 AM
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi
I did not give the copyright to Peswiki.
I give my authorization to publish my paper ”How repulsive gravity contributes for cold fusion in Rossi-Focardi experiment” in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
Andrea Rossi
July 15th, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
Thank you very much, I read your paper and is very interesting, as well as all your work. I just can’t push, but we will publish it.
Warm Regards,
Andrea
Wladimir Guglinski
July 16th, 2011 at 8:10 AM
Dear Dr. Andrea Rossi
in my paper it’s suggested the element to be the best catalyzer for your E-Cat.
In the case the element suggested by my paper is the most important element used as catalyzer in your E-Cat, you can publish the paper with the following note:
NOTE of the editor:
Guglinski’s paper suggests correctly the principal element used as catalyzer in the E-Cat.
However, as Andrea Rossi did not get yet the patent for the E-Cat in USA, the element will not be revealed in the paper here published.
Andrea Rossi
July 16th, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Dear Wladimir Guglinski,
You are very good in this science and I am sure you are making very good things. I am sure you are among those who are or will be able to replicate my effect studying the patent.
Warmest Regards, my friend. And a hug to Brazil!
A.R.
LCD
October 29, 2011 at 5:53 pm
It is interesting but I’m not sure that means much.
raul heining
October 29, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Guglinski is no scientist. He tries to impose an idea taken from geometrical intuition and some no proven results of isolated experiments. His ideas can only influence people not familiar with modern physics notation. In reality he writes things in a way similar to Randon Mills of BLP, but this one knows more about physics than Guglinski.
Regards
raul
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 7:18 pm
raul heining, do you have to insult Guglinski “Guglinski is no scientist.” before you comment on his science. If his ideas will not influence people, why do you worry, they are spending a long time debating his science on the JONP page.
You are free to join the debate and convince the other scientists of your view.
arian
October 29, 2011 at 4:40 pm
e-cat news in russia media.
http://www.newsland.ru/news/detail/id/812674/
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsland.ru%2Fnews%2Fdetail%2Fid%2F812674%2F&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
LENRLENR
October 29, 2011 at 5:40 pm
David Roberson is an electrical engineer. He has recalculated the COP for the Oct 6 test at 7.5, but he had to make many assumptions, which is typical of all attempts at analyzing Rossi’s work.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3303817.ece/BINARY/Updated+analysis+Ecat+Oct+6+Roberson+%28pdf%29
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Andrea Rossi
October 29th, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Dear James Bowery:
max 20 mm in water column was the pressure at the output of the thermocouple.
The genset has been not turned off because we had to give energy to all the auxiliary motors: water pumps and electric fans of the heat dissipators. Of course the energy consumed from these utilities has not to be put in the energy balance of the reactors, because in an industrial application the energy is not dissipated, is utilized, and the pumps to move the water are necessary in this particular kind of test. In any case, all this is described in the draft report on
http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Warm regards,
A.R.
123star
October 29, 2011 at 7:04 pm
66 kWh only to operate pumps and fans? That’s too much! In 5.5 hours it’s 12 kW input!
Can you believe this?
LCD
October 29, 2011 at 7:25 pm
plus the heaters that were eventually turned off no?
123star
October 30, 2011 at 2:42 am
Ok, you are right.
Peter Roe
October 30, 2011 at 8:46 am
There’s a problem with a disparity between the photographed report and the spreadsheet accompanying it. The spreadsheet shows heating commencing at 10:15, but the report states that the power in and (calculated) out were measured between 12:30 and 18:00 (66 kWh consumed, 2635 kWh output). It is therefore not clear how much input power was applied during the heating up phase, i.e., between 10:15 and 12:30, although it seems likely that the report was simply filled in incorrectly and the 66 kWh is in fact the total input for 10:15-18:00. A graph of power in over time would presumably be conclusive proof of self sustaining operation, and the customer must have this data.
Just another one of those questions that always seem to left open after these demos and tests.
Peter Roe
October 30, 2011 at 8:53 am
I think it is pretty clear that the ‘report’ we have seen is just for the onlookers. The customer will have a lot more to go on.
Marcellogo
October 29, 2011 at 6:42 pm
On an article of Radio Citta del Capo from Bologna it was specified that almost one of the advisot was from OTO Melara, the very top between various FINMECCANICA branches and subsidiaries.
Altough specialized in military products OTO is also Finmeccanica’ Think tank.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Rossi fibbed this morning saying he was not going to answer questions today, he can’t keep away, hopefully man caught up with excitement of success. More answers on his page for techies
123star
October 29, 2011 at 6:54 pm
A little calculation, assuming water still liquid at 104.5 °C (it is sufficient about 0.2 bar overpressure for that). We do not consider water vaporization. Is the input energy (66 kWh) sufficient to heat the water to 104.5 °C?
3716 liters vaporized (declared) which is about 3716 kg assuming density 1 kg/l).
Declared energy input 66 kWh
Input water temperature 18.3 °C
Output temperature 104.5 °C
Difference 86.2 °C
Water specific heat 4.181 kJ/(K*kg)
Energy to heat water: 82.6*4.181*3716 = 1283323 kJ = 356 kWh.
Conclusion:
66 kWh are not sufficient to heat the said quantity of water from 18.3 °C to 104.5 °C. The required energy is about 350 kWh. Note, we suppose that vaporisation does not occur even at 104.5 °C.
Can anyone confirm this?
Tom Baccei
October 29, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I think the point is that the 66 kwh is the “startup” energy. Some of it for pumps, etc. and some to warm the ecat cores and water. As the startup period continued, the ecats would increasingly contribute to the warming (and vaporization) of the water. It is merely guessing if you try to analyze this except in a qualitative sense, because you do not know the operating parameters of the sequence.
123star
October 30, 2011 at 2:38 am
I was trying to answer the following question:
Assuming that
1) the 66 kWh figure is true
2) Rossi is only using conventional electric heaters and there is no nuclear source(i.e. he is lying)
3) the pumps and the fans consume negligible amount of energy (otherwise there would be less than 66 kWh available for heaters, of course).
The question is:
Is 66 kWh enough energy to heat the water from 18.3 °C to 104.5°C anyway?
My answer is no, it is not enough (not that I really believe in Rossi’s claims, however).
Peter Roe
October 30, 2011 at 9:06 am
Even if the pumps and fans together only need say 4 kW (a typical large industrial fan might be rated at between 1 – 2 kW), then that is 20 kWh off the input available for heaters.
arian
October 29, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Now I’m almost sure customer must be a military organization.
#
Andrea Rossi
October 29th, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Dear Max:
The Customer is of a category that usually maintains secret all they do. I do not know if and when they will want to make public statements and I am bound to a strict non disclosure agreement.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
LCD
October 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Tell AR to leak it the way everybody else does it. LOL
Ever heard of wikileaks AR
Dale G. Basgall
October 29, 2011 at 7:25 pm
LCD- as focardi was talking in one of the videos he did say the word Iron, kind of drawn out but it was Iron what he said when he was talking about the catalyst. This was in a recent video. (Focardi spoke in English in this one and not like the translated by Mr. Rossi interview early in this demo history.)
This may or may not be true as far as the actual catalyst however, the iron molecule looks appealing and also iron acts as a counduit for magnetic gauss, like crystals bouncing and translating the probable interactions of the protons making the reaction almost like the mirrors in the fission devices.
I myself find this believable that iron could act as some type of reverberation mirror and transfer and magnify the possibility of more transmutations within the nickel.
LCD
October 29, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Dale that speculation is probably as good as any speculation.
Personally I’ve tried not to devote too much time to theory until I know most of the empirical facts but here is what I know so far…briefly.
LENR in general does not produce much if any gamma rays – consistent with the ecat.
LENR experiments have reported alpha particles.
Copper is above Nickel in the periodic table and Iron is below so if transmutations occur via fusion and beta decay you would expect those. That’s where I’m thinking the Iron is from.
As far as the catalyst you’ll remember the Focardi interview where he stated that the catalyzer was a dehydrogenizer or something that split the H2 molecule into H-H. As far as that goes Iron is not as good (in my googling) as Nickel, so you would need something even better than Nickel to do that.
As far as the gamma rays not being seen, LENR experiments have lead some people to propose that optical phonons are carrying that energy out of the nucleus. Now don’t ask me how because I can’t even begin to see that but something is clearly suppressing the gamma radiation that experiment after experiment fails to observe.
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 7:35 pm
From Facebook
Rob McGowan Interesting update by David Robertson on his review of the 6 October test ,in light of initial results (alleged) of yesterday http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3303817.ece/BINARY/Updated+analysis+Ecat+Oct+6+Roberson+%28pdf%29
Michael Zorg Junior
October 29, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Good evenning
A physicist by training, I’ve followed this story since january 14 and then this interesting forum. Hopeful at first (unlike some skeptics, I take LENR seriously because of a lot of solid results such as by G. Miley and others in the US, L. Urutskoev and yet others in Russia and also in Ukraine, etc. although I don’t subscribe to the the Widom-Larsen nonsense), I progressively had to agree with the likes of MY, Thicket et al. and now with Krivit.
It is the only perspective IMO that gives this whole thing some sense : Rossi as an enterpreneur who hopes to get funding and highly skilled contracted personel for developping a technology he feels is right around the corner, even if using a few tricks and lots of bluff and Chuzpah.
If I were a serious investor, I’d require proof that a 5kW device can run for months or at least weeks on a few grams of H and tens of grams of Ni in a well controlled environment. I would certainly not be satisfied with demos that do not exclude any chemical reaction (such as Al and NaOH aqu. sol. + some air bubbles from leaky water pump circuits to take care of the hydrogen – noticed how corroded the “brand new” Oct 6 Aluminium outer reactor fins and chambers were? – plus some heat to control the rate) And I would certainly not buy this 1MW junk unless it too would run for far longer than 5 hours.
Maybe the only thing Defkalion engineers understood is this modus operandi : hey, if Rossi can get funding for this “just around the corner” technology with a few easy tricks and some chuzpah, why not us too? With several millions to begin some good R&D in this seriously underfunded field, we too could become a world-class player in this new civilization-changing tech with billions more to make in the near future.
Imitation is indeed the most sincere form of flattery
Regards
georgehants
October 29, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Michael Zorg Junior it is good to see a physicist using the power of clairvoyance to see the reality of things, I am strong believer of investigation in this area and as it has been excepted by many law officers as reality, it is strange that science does not more professionally follow the evidence.
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/psychicdetectives.html
Unfortunately I have to rely on the old scientific method of wait until all the evidence is in before I make a judgement based on incomplete or emotional reasoning.
daniel maris
October 29, 2011 at 9:09 pm
I don’t understand your logic. If it can run for 5 hours defying physics as previously taught why on earth would you worry whether it can work for 5 months? That would be a mere detail.
Michael Zorg Jr
October 29, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Dear Daniel,
Indeed, if it ran for 5 hours under perfectly controlled conditions, with far more checks than were performed on what exactly comes out of the primary circuit that is dumped into some unseen “sink”, on every possible thing connected to the complicated input water circuits and heat exchangers so that any source of chemical energy is excluded, with continuous measurements vs periodic samplings at convenient times, and perhaps input power sampled at other convenient times, etc. as well as full analysis of all the accessories peripheral to the core before and after, I would certainly agree.
But none of Rossi’s many demos fulfill these criteria.
A device running for days or weeks would be near to impossible to fake.
Indeed LENR will require new theories. Though there are hints and many interesting ideas, noone has a finished matching theory that explains all the many pecularities seen in various well-documented LENR experiments.
And, so far as I know, no yet demonstrated industrial application, even by the best researchers in the field.
Tom Baccei
October 29, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Science has squandered its opportunity to do the research on this phenomenon because AR has wisely decided to bypass the physics community (by and large) and go directly to market. Who cares how it works, as long as does work.
AR is NOT demonstrating his device in hopes of convincing the physicists among us of anything. That will, of course, follow, if his device achieves a foothold in the market. Are you suggesting that he is falsifying the tests through a fraudulent device, because he wishes / hopes / thinks it will work soon, and it’s OK to scam as long as your intentions are good? Or, are you suggesting that it does work, but only for a few hours? WHO CARES? As long as AR breaks the ridiculous barriers to understanding this phenomenon I wouldn’t care if he pulled a rabbit out of his arse! (or a cat). Or are you suggesting that all of the many people who have and are evaluating this technology live and in person are a bunch of frauds and/or incompetents? There, of course, we are back into the argument from superiority. If YOU were there all of this silliness would be all straightened out by now. The point is that we do not know enough to truly judge the physical characteristics of this device. It possibly works. It possibly is a fraud. But it is in our interest to FIND OUT WHICH!
In my opinion, AR has proceeded in the only rational way considering the pompous denials of the theoretical physics crowd which trusts their theories more than the empirical evidence. Remember, AR is NOT trying to convince YOU, but the commercial marketplace. Since he has apparently sold one, we shall probably know very soon the viability of his device. Nice to hear from a physicist who is not a knee jerk skeptic.
Tom B.
Jay2011
October 29, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Hi Tom,
You’ve made many good points in the past, but I have to disagree here. For one, assuming Rossi had the repeatable, scientific goods, he could have, perhaps with the help of Focardi, Levi, and others, made a convincing case to the scientific community. For his own reasons, he chose not to. In fact, his demonstrations are so poorly designed that they are clearly either the result of deliberate sandbagging (as has been suggested), or very poor understanding of good scientific and engineering method.
Secondly, although I agree that convincing the commercial marketplace may be different than convincing scientists, it’s not that different. Convincing a few investors and a single customer on the “believer” end of the spectrum does not make for a viable commercial product and market. Ultimately, most large scale customers will have scientists and engineers on staff who will need to be convinced. True, that can be done privately rather than publicly. But either way, the present demo will not pave the way to market acceptance. Only real proof will work. Rossi may not need to convince us, meaning those of us in this forum. But we represent a slice of world opinion. People putting money on the table will generally be harder to convince, not easier.
My one cent.
H. Visscher
October 30, 2011 at 12:44 am
And Rossi did a very good job in convincing. The results (a sale) speak for themselves.
H. Visscher
October 30, 2011 at 12:58 am
By the way this was a DELIVERY test. It says so on the third page. More thorough test have probably done earlier, prior to the conditional sale. The protocal for this test was set by customer and Rossi. This test was to make sure that everything still worked according to previous tests.
arian
October 30, 2011 at 1:14 am
Dear Jay2011
The scientific community don’t care about scientific method they care about their beloved theory. watch this documentary of Validation of New Energy Source from nickel -hydrogen reaction by Rowan University in 2008.after this validation we didn’t hear anything from the scientific community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfjOIoPwolg
So you can see the scientific community don’t care about scientific method they just ignore anything that invalid their beloved theory.
Tom Baccei
October 30, 2011 at 12:02 pm
My point is that we, on this blog, and in the general community have no way of judging the scientific truth thus far. The skeptics are now, as they have been, correct in that. What we are left with is judging the motivation and intent of the players. Judging scientific truth is what scientists do, judging motivation and intent are (among other things) what business people do. Having done both in my life, I have consistently said on this blog that regardless of the nature of any demonstration, a scientific judgement will not and can not be made in the chosen theater.
It is the other factors which are relevant here.
1. The physics establishment has turned a cold shoulder and deaf ear to any and all experiments providing evidence of a phenomenon not consistent with the current “standard model”. The result is a growing distrust of the scientific establishment.
2. Th Rossi claims are consistent with and apparently an extension of various other demonstrations of unusual nickel hydrogen energy production, some of which have a fairly high level of credibility.
3. Observers with various sorts of training from around the world have seen his demonstrations in person. With the exception of the obviously incompetent Mr. Krivit, none of them has denied the production of considerable excess energy. None of the have detected any indication of fraud, except for the large, running generator. It is inconceivable that the “customer” was unaware of the possible fraudulent use of that generator.
3. Mr. Rossi has, and continues to have considerable contact with the interested community. He is “high profile”. His connections with several credible scientists continues unabated. His devices, and demonstrations obviously required the work of many individuals, and were expensive productions. The scope of this scam would vastly exceed that of any previous that I am aware of. Beyond the secret catalyst, there are clearly characteristics of his device he does not want the general public to know yet. I suspect that his stability problems are worse than stated.
4. The idea of a “much longer” demonstration while understandable is not a very sensible request. He clearly has decided to be there in person during any demonstration for probably two reasons. He wants to protect his intellectual property, and he wants to be there to insure the safety of the operation. Also, no observers could watch the device for more than the length of time already dedicated. They need to eat and sleep. Any “video” monitoring would be subject to the same skeptical criticisms as the current experiments. i.e. they could easily be faked. Thicket would be no more credulous than before.
5. The next step, as indicated by AR is to commence scientific work at Bologna and Uppsala . That will take time. The “customer” will need to evaluate, and re-engineer the device. That will take time. With the possible exception of a dramatic development at Defkalion or Black Light Power we will not learn much more for some time.
Look, any scam involving the scale of energy production in the last demonstration would have to be a very evolved and intentional fraud. Read: Jail Time. Any idea that the ecat is ready for prime time is wildly optimistic. However all of the above leads me to be very optimistic that this source of energy is legitimate, and that AR has taken another step along the path of developing it. All of the criticism also makes it clear that there is much more work to be done, both in basic research, and R&D before we can start to deploy the Wonder of Bologna.
Jay2011
October 30, 2011 at 3:06 pm
You make many good points here. I have one comment. Business may often have to go on motivation and intent because there are too many unknowns to make a solid judgment. In this case, business has more to go on. There are public demonstrations of the technology. Business can and will hire scientists to help decipher what these mean. I’ve been hired in the past to make precisely these kinds of determinations. It’s part of a normal due diligence process. In this case, I would have to advise a client that the public demonstrations don’t prove anything and to insist on a better private demonstration. Of course some clients may be less rigorous than others. Perhaps Rossi has found some easier clients that will be convinced with less than solid data. That doesn’t make his case more convincing in my book. That’s why I’m going to have to wait this one out a bit longer, until more solid facts and data emerge.
And yes, you are right, there’s a heck of a lot of scientific and engineering work to be done to turn this into a real product.
Stephen
October 29, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Eh, if it worked with Carbon Credits…
Don Witcher
October 29, 2011 at 9:02 pm
We need the theory asap but for now it works and works well. Rossi doesn’t have an investor. Rossi has a customer who needs the ecat and needs it now. The ecat goes to work now. Think about it a little bit.
Thicket
October 29, 2011 at 9:26 pm
What a bizarre approach to running a supposedly important demonstration.
On one hand, you have an important potential customer that you want to impress. The customer has technical folks to independently collect data. The company wants to keep its identity secret.
On the other hand you have a number of invited guests, at least one of whom can be the key to widespread media coverage. You only allow them to see snippets of the demonstration.
Why the heck would you have only one demonstration for both the customer and the other invitees? Rossi should hold it on separate days. Rossi did private demonstrations before including for Quantum and Defkalion. Rossi has his 500 kW demonstration unit. Run it on two separate days!
Instead, we get a muddled mess of peekaboo. For the much-anticipated end of October demonstration, this was a colossal flop in my opinion.
arian
October 29, 2011 at 9:33 pm
I think if Domenick Fioravanti be a american you can find out about him in this site.
http://pipl.com/directory/name/Fioravanti/Domenick
Don Witcher
October 29, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Thicket
Trouble thinking?
AB
October 29, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Apparently selling a 1 MW plant to a convinced customer is a colossal flop in the pseudoskeptic dictionary.
Stephen
October 29, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Apparently reading about the sale of a 1 MW plant to a convinced customer is a colossal truth in the faithful believer’s dictionary.
AB
October 29, 2011 at 9:58 pm
So you believe the men were hired actors or could have been hired actors?
Stephen
October 30, 2011 at 5:48 pm
You should see me acting at my job.
This said, have you seen the contracts, the press conference, have you heard the speech from the President, or the marketing VP, of the company making the acquisition, about the “new era that is upon us”? No, you did not. You saw identified people, you saw a list of people, you did not see the name of the company involved, you did not see their people (not that I believe you to be able to recognize any of them, as actors or engineers). There might be a bunch of lawyers and “suits” sitting in a room but we can’t see/know about that either.
I believe that the technology is possible, but I don’t trust Rossi one bit, I have met his type too often for one lifetime already.
daniel maris
October 29, 2011 at 10:59 pm
From Kahuna on the Polywell site:
“According to Rossi, the reactor would have (will) produce 1MW in Controlled Mode (requiring continuous power input) but the customer opted for a Self-Sustain Mode test yesterday which can only operate at lower temps (to avoid a run-away reaction?). True or not, this seems to be the explanation as to why only 479KW (vs. 1MW) was achieved in the test. ”
Has anyone else heard this explanation? It does sound plausible, in the sense that stop/start generation doesn’t sound like a very friendly operational mode. But on the other hand doesn’t the system require stop/start? Confused!
Al L
October 30, 2011 at 7:24 am
Does anyone actually know that the device really worked as described? Does anyone actually know that the ‘customer’ is not simply a co-conspirator? Does anyone know that a contract was actually signed, and that money will be exchanged? No, no, no, and no. Truly, if you were personally considering investing thousands of your own money in this technology, is there sufficient evidence to convince you to do so?
Tony
October 30, 2011 at 7:49 am
I agree. What you would actually do is test the device before buying or investing, just like his customer did… if his customer is real, then good for them. Nobody is asking you to invest anything.
arian
October 30, 2011 at 8:07 am
If you want solid answer for your first questions ,time answer your question and about last question,according to rossi he did research and experiment in this field for 18 years in his spare time until he convinced that he discovered a repeatable and extraordinary reaction then he abandoned اhis profession and sold his company in usa and invest in his research.
arian
October 30, 2011 at 7:27 am
Article about e-cat test in poland media
http://gadzetomania.pl/2011/10/29/ruszyly-testy-reaktora
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgadzetomania.pl%2F2011%2F10%2F29%2Fruszyly-testy-reaktora&sl=pl&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
georgehants
October 30, 2011 at 8:45 am
It is clear that the fair skeptics are correct that the last test did little to add to “our” knowledge of the CAT.
Rossi has always said selling in the market will bypass skepticism and he is correct but this sale with a hidden buyer, as he knows will not finalise the proof needed.
The facts are, that he has added to the number of actor extras needed to keep any scam alive, spent quite a lot on props etc. with so far no possible sane reason beyond personal publicity.
We must wait for developments, as usual.
My personal view for what it is worth is the same at 99.9% convinced that Rossi is legit and all will be well.
.
georgehants
October 30, 2011 at 9:25 am
Andrea Rossi
October 30th, 2011 at 4:14 AM
Dear Dave Price:
Yes, R&D with Bologna and Uppsala Universities is the next scientific step, while the manufacturing and commercialization go on.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
georgehants
October 30, 2011 at 9:27 am
H. Visscher
October 29th, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Hello Andrea,
I congratulate you on this commercial and scientific achievement. I have just one question: When will the next delivery take place? What device will that be?
Thanks again for keeping us informed.
H. Visscher
Andrea Rossi
October 30th, 2011 at 4:12 AM
Dear H. Visscher:
USA, industrial, heating system.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
pedrone
October 30, 2011 at 12:10 pm
———————–
raul heining
October 29, 2011 – 7:02 pm | Permalink
Guglinski is no scientist. He tries to impose an idea taken from geometrical intuition and some no proven results of isolated experiments. His ideas can only influence people not familiar with modern physics notation. In reality he writes things in a way similar to Randon Mills of BLP, but this one knows more about physics than Guglinski.
Regards
raul
————————–
Wow…Mr. Raul…
Andrea Rossi and the reviewer of the articles submitted to the Journal of Nuclear Physics have a different opinion.
I found the following reply by Andrea Rossi to a guy named Mr. insight:
————————-
Andrea Rossi
October 2nd, 2011 at 8:12 AM
Dear Insight:
The paper of Wladimir Guglinski is the result of a serious study. The peer reviewer who analyzed the paper “Anomalous Mass od the Neutrons” has licensed it and consequently the Journal of Nuclear Physics has been honoured to publish it.
I have full respect of the Board Of Advisers: the Board Of Advisers decides the peer reviewer of all the papers which the Journal Of Nuclear Physics receives and the peer reviewers decide if a paper has to be published or not.
Therefore I suggest to all our Readers to read the article “Anomalous Mass Of The Neutrons” of Wladimir Guglinski that the Journal Of Nuclear Physics has published today.
Waem Regards,
Andrea Rossi
————————-
Raul, it seems that you and mr. insight are discomfortable because you both try to save quantum mechanics, and Guglinski it is showing quantum mechanics must be replaced by a new theory.
Besudes, I find very interesting your idea of what is a true scientist. Because you probably know so many true scientists, but no one of them was capable to predict the correct catalyst used by Andrea Rossi.
And Guglinski, who according to you is not a scicentist, has predicted it correctly.
I think there is something wrong with your idea on what is a true scientists, Mr. Raul
AB
October 30, 2011 at 12:53 pm
I wouldn’t take these discussion so seriously, scientists often disagree with each other.
Peter Roe
October 30, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Bravado or preparedness?
Bernie Koppenhofer
October 30th, 2011 at 1:25 PM
The snake will not let us email him, I think he has crawled back into his hole. Congratulations Mr. Rossi!!
Andrea Rossi
October 30th, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Dear Bernie Koppenhofer:
You mean the Puppett Snake? You bet, he will never stop shooting at me, he has been paid to do it from the well known Puppetteers. Until they use a puppett snake they are not dangerous. Soon they will use more efficient shootings. Nevertheless we will continue to work.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andre
October 31, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Hey, you stated in a much more direct way what I was trying to communicate, thanks, I will recommend your site to my friends.
My blog:
internetanbieter vergleich und Anbieter