Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Engineer Explains Why Rossi Demos Failed
New Energy Times Blog ^ | 11/10/2011 | Steven B. Krivit

Posted on 11/10/2011 12:35:57 PM PST by Johnny B.

According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.

According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.

At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.”

According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.”

Brian Ahern, a researcher with expertise in LENR, wrote to New Energy Times with a concise summary of the recent Oct. 28 Rossi demo:

“Rossi has been clever enough to change the trick on each successive demo. Using a secret customer is a great way to allow him to fulfill his promise to demo the 1 MW unit in October. He then evaded conducting the demo transparently by saying that the customer demanded the demo conditions. The “customer’ signed off when Rossi gave him the wink and he shut things down without any measurements by anyone except the shill.

“Occam’s Razor, on the other hand, says that 12 inconclusive demos in succession are not random. It is well planned and orchestrated. He has used the journalists like a team of puppets.”


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canr; cmns; coldfusion; ecat; energy; lenr; nasa; rossi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-204 next last
To: dinodino
Once again I like what Jed Rothwell has to say

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jed Rothwell
Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:16:41 -0800

Horace Heffner wrote:


> Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat?
>

So they say.



> If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is
> irrelevant.
>

That one, as far as I know. It was tested before. It shows signs of having
been run many times, such as scale inside it.



> Levi has been an inside guy from the beginning has he not?
>

No, only since December 2010. He only became an "insider" because he saw
proof that the reaction is real. If you're going to criticize anyone who
believes Rossi and accuse him of being an insider there will be an ever
widening circle of people you consider persona non grata. It will be like a
giant game of sardines, where you lose.



> I see no difference between him and Rossi in regards to this issue. For
> that matter Defkalion is or will be selling similar devices, true?
>

So they say.



> What is important, obviously, is access by independent observers.
>

Defkalion is independent of Rossi. Quite independent -- he has broken off
relations with them. As I said, you are setting up a gigantic game of
sardines here. First Rossi is suspect because Rossi makes the claims. Then
Defkalion the suspect because they make the same claims. Now I suppose
George Miley is suspect because he saw the same thing. How long are you I
keep this up? When 100 different labs replicate this are you going to say
everyone of them is part of the conspiracy and there are no independent
observers? Anyone who agrees it is real is automatically guilty of
conspiracy and fraud.



> 2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after
> the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the
> vessel. There is no place to put concrete.
>
>
> These are meaningless words. I specified *inside* the 30x30x30 cm inner
> box. What happens outside that box is obviously immaterial. Why would
> you bring such a red herring into the discussion?
>

See: displacement; Archimedes.



> 3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was
> no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors
> were real and this one is fake.
>
>
> This is nonsense, and yet another red herring. You are digging pretty
> deep to respond! 8^) The calorimetry for those devices was entirely
> different. They were not designed by Rossi to demonstrate "heat after
> death".
>

The previous reactors *did* demonstrate heat after death, on
several occasions. I do not know what you are talking about.



> No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect
> and half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is
> turned on,
>
> What do you mean half the input power is being stored? It is all being
> stored (except for leakage through the insulation) until heat shows up at
> the heat exchanger.
>

Yes, of course. How could it? After it does reach the exchanger, output
soon catches up with input. By the time heat after death began the balance
was about even. There was no stored heat, except the heat in the remaining
hot water of course. You can see from the decay curves that this would all
emerge in about 45 min. with no input power, and it would cool very rapidly
during this time. There is no way the temperature could have remained at
boiling for four hours.



> All you are saying here is the output energy is larger than the input
> energy. We can not know that without good thermocouple readings.
>

You can move the output line down to any plausible spot you like, or even
halfway down, which is preposterous and not a bit plausible. Output still
greatly exceeds input.


This is not inferable from a measurement. This is a rehash of old well
> trodden material.
>

However, it is still correct. You have not refuted it. You have not even
addressed most aspects of it, such as the fact that there is no concrete in
the previous cylindrical reactors and they also demonstrated heat after
death. For that matter input was so small compared to output, all of the
heat might as well be considered heat after death.

- Jed


---------------------------------------------------
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg54795.html

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jed Rothwell
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:27:07 -0800

Mary Yugo wrote:

How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was
>> something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other
>> object magically defies Archimedes' law.
>>
>
> Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am
> can try to put together an exhaustive list.
>

You do not need an exhaustive list. The problem is much simpler than
that. All you need is the extreme. You find out what chemical produces the
most energy per unit of volume, and you figure out how much of that will
fit inside the reactor core. The answer is rocket fuel with an oxidizer.
The thing is underwater so it cannot be fed with air. We know the answer is
rocket fuel because if there was any chemical with higher energy density,
they would use that for rocket fuel instead of what they do use.

It is easy to determine that this cell cannot hold enough rocket fuel plus
the equipment you need to ignite it and control it.

Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or
gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only
make a bomb. In real life, you would have to use something less energy
dense, producing much less heat. In other words, rocket fuel is the
theoretical maximum, and any real chemical would be much worse. Since
rocket fuel would not work, neither would anything else.



> I'd include, in addition to various sets of chemicals, issues of things
> that change state at moderate temperatures, adsorb to surfaces, and
> probably many things I have not thought of yet.
>

All irrelevant. The only question is, how much heat can you generate with a
chemical device of this size? Answer: Nowhere near enough.



> And I maintain that the interior volume available for cheating is
> unknown because nobody has recorded it.
>

They did record it, by Archimedes' method. Do you think that has stopped
working after 2200 years?



> What was that finned thing inside the device? You're sure it's only a
> heat exchanger with active core modules in it? And you know that how?
>

That's the cell, but who cares what that is? For the purposes of this
analysis, it does not make the slightest difference what that is. You can
estimate the volume of it by displacement, and you can see it is not big
enough. There is no electric power or fuel being being fed into it, and it
cannot hold enough chemical fuel. That's all you need to know.



> In any scam, it's the part you don't get that gets you.
>

Any scam must obey the laws of physics.


I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you're right -- I can't name the
> method or methods.
>

If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that
you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That
would be form or religion, or perhaps literature.

All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . .
means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump
of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it
does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know
anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in
the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?



> They may be different and multiple each and every time.
>

Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham's razor. Especially, stop
multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
in principle. This is -- literally -- like debating how many angels can
dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you
have proposed NOTHING.


Similarly I don't know how famous magicians do their illusions.
>

I do know. You can look it up in Wikipedia. When you look inside the
stage apparatus, the methods are immediately obvious. Not one is
sophisticated or mysterious. Some of them have been use for hundreds of
years; some go back thousands of years. If this the only proof you can come
up with -- that you personally do not know how stage magicians do their
illusions -- you have disproved your own point. Anyone who makes a casual
study of stage magic will know that the methods are dead simple and cannot
be used to hide a wire in Rossi's reactor, once you open it up.

- Jed



181 posted on 11/12/2011 2:06:30 AM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I know someone who evaluated that software. He has a PHd in chemistry and he says this software generates better results than the software based on current theories.

I didn't have my friend evaluate the software. You used to be able to download it for free, I don't know if you still can. I played with it and some of it makes sense. Keep in mind, it's been a long time since I had to do the orbitals of an element. I just looked them up in wiki and I'm glad I don't have to take those classes again.

182 posted on 11/12/2011 9:45:37 AM PST by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or
gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only
make a bomb.”

FALSE. Plenty of racers have cheated with hydrazine. Their cars did not turn into bombs, and only a thin layer was required.

I’m not saying that Rossi is using hydrazine, but he’s using something to cheat. The fact that he dumps his water right down the drain is damned suspicious. It’s too bad the “researchers” whom are watching these experiments are not taking and testing samples. Perhaps they are on Rossi’s payroll?


183 posted on 11/12/2011 6:32:04 PM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

Jed says it so well in the post you responded to. Basically, in order for there to be enough hydrazine to account for the excess heat, it would need to be far more than a thin layer.


Any scam must obey the laws of physics.

I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you’re right — I can’t name the
> method or methods.
>

If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that
you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That
would be form or religion, or perhaps literature.

All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . .
means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump
of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it
does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know
anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in
the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?

> They may be different and multiple each and every time.
>

Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham’s razor. Especially, stop
multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
in principle. This is — literally — like debating how many angels can
dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you
have proposed NOTHING.


184 posted on 11/12/2011 9:34:43 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“Especially, stop
multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
in principle.”

Actually, the skeptics have been calling for independent inspection and replication of Rossi’s equipment, precisely for detection of any means he may be using to cheat. He has not allowed peer review of his method. Occam’s Razor dictates that Rossi is cheating and that he has not discovered a new nuclear process.


185 posted on 11/13/2011 2:42:15 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

Occam’s Razor dictates that Rossi is cheating and that he has not discovered a new nuclear process.
***You’re way behind the curve on this one. Occham’s Razor suggests rather than dictates. And it suggests that Rossi is going into business rather than trying to make a scientific case. Peer review in such a strategy is meaningless. Also, Rossi’s contribution has not ever been that he “discovered a new nuclear process.” That was Pons & Fleishmann’s contribution. Rossi’s contribution was that he found a catalyst to make the process more easily repeatable, so much so that he’s going into production and already has sold at least one unit to a customer.


186 posted on 11/13/2011 2:48:52 AM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

I’m not saying that Rossi is using hydrazine, but he’s using something to cheat.
***Until you specify a method of stage magic you
have proposed NOTHING.


187 posted on 11/13/2011 2:50:31 AM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Okay, I propose hydrogen peroxide as an additive to the water. Disprove it! You can’t, because Rossi hasn’t allowed anyone to chemically analyze the water. I know, because it’s not in any of the reports, and despite repeated requests to the contrary, Rossi continues to run his water down the drain during his tests.


188 posted on 11/13/2011 2:54:24 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

Already covered

How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real (or Fake)
LENR.QUMBO.com ^ | April 6, 2011 | Alan Fletcher
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2011 7:52:15 PM by Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2730401/posts


189 posted on 11/13/2011 3:08:03 AM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Sorry, I just read that page and I see no mention of hydrogen peroxide at all. Do you have another link you’d like to try?


190 posted on 11/13/2011 3:30:22 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
It is right there in section 7.6. The link points to Jones Beene at Vortex, where as usual, I like what Jed Rothwell has to say. How do you hide 54 tons of it? 7.6. Combustible "Water" Proposed by : Jones Beene Vortex The water supply is not, in fact, water, but a combustible liquid which looks like water. In the category of clear water-based liquids which burn cleanly enough to be used indoors, and which could be confused with water in a testing arrangement (since it would be so unexpected as the 'trick' used to pull-off the deception) - there are several choices. These are miscible and with 40-50% water and the resultant blend would be combustible at that dilution level - would go undetected by a group of observers who assumed that it was water. All of these ingredients would be expected to be legitimately found in any company which produces or evaluates alternative fuels - and if the ruse was discovered prematurely . "oops, Igor, you brought in the wrong container," or else "yes, our municipal water is very polluted here". ... Hydrogen peroxide produces only steam. HOOH is more viscous than water, but appears colorless in solution. It is both an oxidant an a propellant. When used in a blend, it would provide free oxygen and steam, so that air is not needed to combust the other ingredients (or less is needed). ... ---------------------------------------------------------- Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based & combustible Jed Rothwell Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:06:51 -0700 Jones Beene wrote: Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might > be willing to advance …. > Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's absence? I imagine they will notice. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will try another source of water. > BTW – calculations based on heat content can be thrown out the window with > peroxide blends, which produce cold steam with less energy than seems > physically possible … > What is "cold steam"? This stuff boils at 150°C, it seems. The Rossi device steam is 101°C, if you believe thermometers work. - Jed ------------------------------------------------- Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based & combustible Jed Rothwell Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:46:41 -0700 Mark Iverson wrote: Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which > is that he ONLY receives money when the plant is producing energy... so > there is no "up-front cash". Don't think that the scenario is consistent > with first-hand information... > My impression is that Jones Beene made up this scenario, as a hypothetical. It is another "Just So Story." As such, it is harmless. In real life, this scenario cannot be squared with the fact that tests at U. Bologna are continuing, and units will probably be delivered to universities in Sweden. Obviously, any tricks would be revealed by these tests. Rossi is not going to install 50-ton tanks of chemicals in these universities. None of the tricks listed by Alan Fletcher would survive these tests either. Most of them would be detected in a few minutes by any half-awake person. Some of them are interesting mind-experiments, but in real life we can rule them out. Fletcher's speculation is harmless too, but it causes a minor annoyance: some of the skeptics take these ideas seriously. The Wikipedia article on the E-Cat now has a pointer to them. We cannot blame Fletcher for what skeptics do. They will find any number of reasons to deny this. I expect they will soon erase the Wikipedia article. They do not matter. - Jed -----------------------------------------------------
191 posted on 11/13/2011 10:29:30 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which > is that he ONLY receives money when the plant is producing energy... so > there is no “up-front cash”. Don’t think that the scenario is consistent > with first-hand information...”

Any defense of Rossi which is based upon the idea that he only gets paid when the units work is out the door now that he is trying to lure investors.


192 posted on 11/14/2011 3:12:56 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Johnny B.; All
"Why did Rossi drop his garbage-to-oil process as soon as authorities started investigating it?"

An excellent question worth repeating. If Rossi wasn't involved in a scam for this garbage to fuel invention of his, why isn't it running right now? It couldn't have just all been one big scam involving even US President Jimmy Carter who gave Rossi a permanent visa for this invention would it?

Where is this Rossi invention? Why isn't it running even today? Why, it couldn't have been a scam could it?


193 posted on 11/14/2011 8:16:29 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Mail fraud is simply the utterance of a document (check, credit card slip, money order) that directs the conveyance of money from one account to another account."

For someone that claims to have retired from the USPS and claims, "I also wrote the Domestic Mail Manual, the Operations Manual, the Administrative Support Manual, and a whole host of subordinate documents and guides.", you sure don't know the legal definition of mail fraud.


Title 18 Section1341 defines mail fraud as:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.


Your definition sounds like a barracks lawyer trying to sound official...and it is wrong.
194 posted on 11/14/2011 8:23:47 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Code Toad, there's what the statute says and there's the practical reality. You write someone a check on an account with the proceeds of unlawful activity you've just commited mail fraud. Taking an excerpt from a larger body does not negate the rest of the body, but the question was why the Italian finance police would go after so terribly many exotic counts that they could not win in court and all they needed was a couple of checks. Apparently they ended up with only 5 of their 95 charges upheld and those were minor technicalities.

You have no idea and are totally ineducable in the matters you raise. Please go get a job some where and come back when you have some experience.

195 posted on 11/14/2011 10:16:11 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

My impression is that Jones Beene made up this scenario, as a hypothetical. It is another “Just So Story.” As such, it is harmless. In real life, this scenario cannot be squared with the fact that tests at U. Bologna are continuing, and units will probably be delivered to universities in Sweden. Obviously, any tricks would be revealed by these tests. Rossi is not going to install 50-ton tanks of chemicals in these universities. None of the tricks listed by Alan Fletcher would survive these tests either. Most of them would be detected in a few minutes by any half-awake person. Some of them are interesting mind-experiments, but in real life we can rule them out. Fletcher’s speculation is harmless too, but it causes a minor annoyance: some of the skeptics take these ideas seriously. The Wikipedia article on the E-Cat now has a pointer to them. We cannot blame Fletcher for what skeptics do. They will find any number of reasons to deny this. I expect they will soon erase the Wikipedia article. They do not matter. - Jed


196 posted on 11/14/2011 7:48:42 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

So, how do you hide 54 tons of it?


197 posted on 11/14/2011 11:43:54 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

You really need to engage your brain a bit more. You are taking the figures from that page you posted and assuming both that the numbers are correct, and that 100% of the input for the February test would have to be hydrogen peroxide.

I think it is more likely that some chemical additive is put into the water and used to boost the heat output. It would not be necessary to feed 100% hydrogen peroxide to accomplish this.


198 posted on 11/15/2011 3:55:47 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
In real life, this scenario cannot be squared with the fact that tests at U. Bologna are continuing
What "continuing" tests are those?

The University of Bologna has denied that they were involved with any of Rossi's tests: http://www.magazine.unibo.it/Magazine/Notizie/2011/11/05/Lecat_lUnivesita_di_Bologna_non_e_coinvolta.htm [Italian version]

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.magazine.unibo.it/Magazine/Notizie/2011/11/05/Lecat_lUnivesita_di_Bologna_non_e_coinvolta.htm&ei=T67CTs2AIpObtwed5N3PDQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.magazine.unibo.it/Magazine/Notizie/2011/11/05/Lecat_lUnivesita_di_Bologna_non_e_coinvolta.htm%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26prmd%3Dimvns [Google English translation].

The latest news was that U of B was waiting for the contract with Rossi to "become active" (waiting for Rossi to pay them?).

Do you have any more current information, or are you just trying to use some of Rossi's misdirection to make this seem more "legitimate" than it really is?

199 posted on 11/15/2011 10:36:50 AM PST by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Johnny B.; JedRothwell

What “continuing” tests are those?
***We’ll have to ask Jed Rothwell, since I was quoting him. He’s a Freeper.


200 posted on 11/15/2011 7:42:10 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-204 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson