Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
next time they can connect an espesso machine. Everyone will enjoy a great coffee: the little metallic flawor from Cu should give a great result ;-) mic 2011/4/17 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Hey Alan, All this talk about ways to fake the Rossi experiment got me to thinking about a clever way which may not have been mentioned – or maybe I overlooked it if it was covered already. Was hydrogen peroxide mentioned? And/or did anyone actually *taste the water* in the first test ? BTW I do not think this demo was a scam, but this scheme could be worth mentioning. It was not generally known at the time in January, but has been mentioned since then - that the demonstration took place at a factory owned by Leonardo. If he wanted to scam, Rossi could have altered the plumbing to one faucet in that room only - to deliver a combustible clear liquid to fill the containers. He may have filled the containers in the presence of the assembled Professors, before the video started - so nobody would have given a second thought it could be anything but eau de municipal. As I recall no one in Italy willing drinks tap water, but in the interest of science – it could have happened. Hopefully we will hear that some brave soul had the foresight (courage) to try to drink a bit of it – so that we can eliminated this possibility too. If not, this opens up a way to get quite a bit of combustible volume into play – more than the one liter. As you may know, there has been a major effort in China to convert coal to liquid fuel – it is called CTL. Usually it is mixed alcohols. One company which has done this remarkably well is known as the “Shenzhen Group”. I have seen a video of a product that is colorless, odorless and water-based that burns completely as if was alcohol, but does not have the volatile odor like alcohol. In fact it was developed to be used indoors for heating and cooking in open kerosene type heaters which are common all over Asia. The biggest selling point is no smell and near zero monoxide - and this could be due to peroxide content. Of course, anything over 30% peroxide would be the perfect scam since it converts directly to steam. However, peroxide itself has a slightly different appearance, so it would need to be a new kind of blend. Rossi would know of this, as EON his other company - is in the alternative fuel business. Ever hear of the Swiss Rocket Man ? Sorry to bother you, if this has been covered. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Hey Alan, All this talk about ways to fake the Rossi experiment got me to thinking about a clever way which may not have been mentioned - or maybe I overlooked it if it was covered already. Was hydrogen peroxide mentioned? And/or did anyone actually *taste the water* in the first test ? BTW I do not think this demo was a scam, but this scheme could be worth mentioning. It was not generally known at the time in January, but has been mentioned since then - that the demonstration took place at a factory owned by Leonardo. If he wanted to scam, Rossi could have altered the plumbing to one faucet in that room only - to deliver a combustible clear liquid to fill the containers. He may have filled the containers in the presence of the assembled Professors, before the video started - so nobody would have given a second thought it could be anything but eau de municipal. As I recall no one in Italy willing drinks tap water, but in the interest of science - it could have happened. Hopefully we will hear that some brave soul had the foresight (courage) to try to drink a bit of it - so that we can eliminated this possibility too. If not, this opens up a way to get quite a bit of combustible volume into play - more than the one liter. As you may know, there has been a major effort in China to convert coal to liquid fuel - it is called CTL. Usually it is mixed alcohols. One company which has done this remarkably well is known as the Shenzhen Group. I have seen a video of a product that is colorless, odorless and water-based that burns completely as if was alcohol, but does not have the volatile odor like alcohol. In fact it was developed to be used indoors for heating and cooking in open kerosene type heaters which are common all over Asia. The biggest selling point is no smell and near zero monoxide - and this could be due to peroxide content. Of course, anything over 30% peroxide would be the perfect scam since it converts directly to steam. However, peroxide itself has a slightly different appearance, so it would need to be a new kind of blend. Rossi would know of this, as EON his other company - is in the alternative fuel business. Ever hear of the Swiss Rocket Man ? Sorry to bother you, if this has been covered. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 06:17 PM 4/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. I would say almost certainly real. But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss. Well said. I agree. I personally agree with both statements ... but at present I have to go with : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v320.php The December/January experiments were too short to rule out ANY of these theoretical fakes. But if Levi's informal reports on the February trial are accepted, then ALL chemical fakes are eliminated. However, neither the January or February reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake. The March report probably rules out a Tarallo fake -- but since the Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes. At present the Rossi eCat has NOT been proven to be real. However, a few simple improvements to the experimental setup will almost certainly do that. Here's hoping that Kullander and Essén close the remaining loopholes in their anticipated new test.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Two major claims about Rossi's must be verified (cause and effect): 1. It is nuclear (the cause) 2. It gives far more thermal energy than consumed electrical energy so there is a commercial viability (the effect) An experiment should focus only on calorimetry since the claimed effect would be lots of heat . Let's forget the cause, at the moment. The simple question: Is the fire (really) hot? still needs to be answered. All other questions come afterwards. And since such experiment could be really simple, we should wonder why it was not done right away? Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in the following simple components could be used besides the E-cat, H2 gas tank and control box: 1) a (sealed) room without power outlet. 2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but limited amount of energy 3) a tank full of water (how many cubic meters would be enough to avoid a reaction out of control?) well insulated (quasi adiabatic) 4) a simple liquid mixer (using power from a dedicated pack of batteries) Just connect the in and the out of the E-cat to the tank and measure the temperature in different points of the tank at regular intervals until batteries are exhausted. Check the level of water inside the tank stays the same. Weight everything before and after. At the end there should be a positive T increase and should be much more than the one that could be possibly generated by the batteries (even the mixer ones) and by burning the missing mass. mic 2011/4/15 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: At 06:17 PM 4/14/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. I would say almost certainly real. But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss. Well said. I agree. I personally agree with both statements ... but at present I have to go with : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v320.php The December/January experiments were too short to rule out ANY of these theoretical fakes. But if Levi's informal reports on the February trial are accepted, then ALL chemical fakes are eliminated. However, neither the January or February reports rule out a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake. The March report probably rules out a Tarallo fake -- but since the Horizontal arm was NOT unwrapped, it does NOT rule out all chemical fakes. At present the Rossi eCat has NOT been proven to be real. However, a few simple improvements to the experimental setup will almost certainly do that. Here's hoping that Kullander and Essén close the remaining loopholes in their anticipated new test.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in the following simple components could be used besides the E-cat, H2 gas tank and control box: 1) a (sealed) room without power outlet. 2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but limited amount of energy This is not necessary. Power meters can be relied upon. Normal scientific instruments and procedures should be used to test this device. Carl Sagan was wrong. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. They are best supported with ordinary evidence from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. (MR) A test with batteries would be showboating in my opinion. It would be giving the skeptics and their unrealistic doubts more respect than they deserve. It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct more than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters drew ~3 kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters nowadays are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps. To be specific, from the photos I take this to be: 18 AWG, 1.0 mm, 2.3 max amps transmission, 16 amps chassis wiring. (Chassis wiring means a short stretch of uninsulated wiring inside a machine.) See: Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm It is preposterous to suggest that you could use this wire to conduct 16 kW at any voltage. Furthermore, Levi looked inside the box at the control electronics and found only 5 simple PLC (programmable logic control). Such devices are rated at one power level and will not work at far higher levels. They would burn up, along with the wire. Fletcher's scenarios are Just So Stories meaning that in real life we can dismiss them. The devices he describes are physically impossible. The people and instruments in his stories would have to react precisely the way he imagines they might -- the slightest variation in their actions or use of instruments would instantly reveal the fake nature of the device. One glance in the wrong direction, one touch of the wrong component, and all would be revealed. The observers would have to be hypnotized to follow Rossi's every instruction. His scenario demands that 50 or more highly experienced engineers and scientists suddenly forget how to do experiments, and how to take rudimentary common sense steps such as holding their hand briefly over the device to confirm it is radiating heat, and over the outlet tube to determine that it is warm. Three of the observers in the January 14 test assured me they did check the tube, and it was too hot to touch, therefore the reactor was definitely producing the level of heat the instruments indicated. The outlet tube would be stone cold in the scenarios Fletcher imagines. His scenarios also assumes that Rossi is a lunatic who has spent €1 million to produce a fake that will be completely revealed soon when they open up the cell and look inside. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct more than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters drew ~3 kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters nowadays are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps. Jed I agree with you ... but then they can claim superconductors... ;-) Batteries as all other instumentation besides the E-Cat should not be Rossi's. Rossi's should not even be in the room. The point is that a *closed* system takes away many possible arguments such as Tarallo's paradox. BTW see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarallo they are good!
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 03:22 PM 4/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Since the claim is a 200 ratio for out/in the following simple components could be used besides the E-cat, H2 gas tank and control box: 1) a (sealed) room without power outlet. 2) a number of car batteries that can provide the necessary but limited amount of energy This is not necessary. Power meters can be relied upon. Normal scientific instruments and procedures should be used to test this device. Power meters can NOT be relied on. http://pesn.com/2011/02/27/9501773_Aviso_Ponders_Open_Sourcing_Self-Running_EV_Tech/ http://pesn.com/2011/02/24/9501772_Philippine_DOE_Verifies_Aviso_Self-Charging_EV/ is almost certainly due to high-frequency crud confusing normal scientific instruments and procedures Carl Sagan was wrong. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary proof. They are best supported with ordinary evidence I agree -- see Rothwell's Razor -- but the ordinary evidence has to be complete. from off-the-shelf instruments and standard techniques. (MR) See above. A test with batteries would be showboating in my opinion. It would be giving the skeptics and their unrealistic doubts more respect than they deserve. It is physically impossible for the wire used in this device to conduct more than ~3 kW. The wire would melt. Years ago, plug in electric heaters drew ~3 kW and the wires became very hot. Those were thick wires. Heaters nowadays are limited to 1.5 kW, or 12.5 amps. To be specific, from the photos I take this to be: 18 AWG, 1.0 mm, 2.3 max amps transmission, 16 amps chassis wiring. (Chassis wiring means a short stretch of uninsulated wiring inside a machine.) See: Handbook of Electronic Tables and Formulas http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm It is preposterous to suggest that you could use this wire to conduct 16 kW at any voltage. Furthermore, Levi looked inside the box at the control electronics and found only 5 simple PLC (programmable logic control). Such devices are rated at one power level and will not work at far higher levels. They would burn up, along with the wire. I agreed with you on this one. Fletcher's scenarios are Just So Stories meaning that in real life we can dismiss them. Except for extending the inner line of the Tarallo fake down the output hose (and selecting some of the chemicals) every single fake I've analyzed has been suggested by somebody else, including the original observing team. Everyone else on the web/academia is demanding more stringent proof. They are NOT dismissing them. Even my methodology comes from an observer: As Villa reported: In the present test, as a precautionary attitude, whatever was not known, not disclosed or not understood has been considered as the energy source. The duration of the tests would be directly proportional to the mass and volume of unknown origin. The devices he describes are physically impossible. The methodology proof of the chemical/finite storage methods does exactly that. By setting the bar at 100% fuel and 100% efficiency all quibbling about engineering efficiency goes away. Why settle for improbable when you can have impossible or unlikely or would have noticed with very little extra work. The people and instruments in his stories would have to react precisely the way he imagines they might -- the slightest variation in their actions or use of instruments would instantly reveal the fake nature of the device. One glance in the wrong direction, one touch of the wrong component, and all would be revealed. The observers would have to be hypnotized to follow Rossi's every instruction. I include air-breathing and fume-emitting combustion as not eliminated, because nobody checked it. But I also include closed systems, where nothing is output except heat, and where the weight of the apparatus doesn't change. They are indistinguishable from a wrapped eCat except that they eventually run out of fuel. His scenario demands that 50 or more highly experienced engineers and scientists suddenly forget how to do experiments, ... Gee : Essen admits it : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44803.html Hello group, In answer to a question from a concerned person regarding water flow measurements during the last Rossi E-cat test/demonstration, Hanno Essén added, perhaps unconsciously, that there will be a follow-up experiment next week. Here's the original email as posted by him on an italian discussion forum (some personal info omitted): * * * Hello I remember clearly that there was no adjusting of the pump during the experiment. There was a tank of distilled water on the floor below the pump. Unfortunately its refilling and weight etc were not checked. These things will be better checked in a follow up experiment next week. Best regards Hanno Essén They also forgot to weigh the hydrogen bottle. They accepted many of Rossi's statements as fact. That wouldn't make it through
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 05:28 PM 4/15/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. I'll raise you TWO bullshits : http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2010Levi-Report-RossiDemo.pdf Power from the 220V line was monitor and logged by a WATTUP? Pro Es power meter. https://www.wattsupmeters.com/secure/products.php?pn=0wai=0spec=3 Mains supply voltage fluctuations not to exceed +/- 10% of the nominal voltage *Some inverters have extremely fast rise times and can damage the electronics. The .Net is recommended if using with an inverter. * Some loads and environments cause excessive noise, which can corrupt calibration data thus leading to erroneous data. This is typically not a problem. But especially for industrial studies where the data is critical, we highly recommend the .Net. This model has significant hardware and software improvements to reduce the likelihood of errors.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 05:50 PM 4/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 05:28 PM 4/15/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. I'll raise you TWO bull$hits : Make that THREE : (on experimental procedures). The temperatures recorded in [Test 2] are shown in fig 4. Unfortunately the original data has been lost but the different evolution is evident.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'll raise you TWO bullshits : You'll lose. Give me a good digital oscilloscope with current and voltage probes that outputs CSV data to an Excel spreadsheet and I'll give you power measurements within the sampling error per one Mr. Nyquist. T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 05:59 PM 4/15/2011, you wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'll raise you TWO bullshits : You'll lose. Give me a good digital oscilloscope with current and voltage probes that outputs CSV data to an Excel spreadsheet and I'll give you power measurements within the sampling error per one Mr. Nyquist. If you read my document you'll see that I recommend the use of oscilloscopes, both to get the accurate non-sinusoidal power AND to verify there's no HF or phase futz. I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings. No, you lose because you did not read what I said: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. Plus, there are perfectly good power measuring instruments that are not oscilloscopes. T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Hey, let's agree that most experimenters measure power incorrectly. T
RE: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
I picked up a conventional rotating eddy current rotor utility power meter at a junk yard, and it's really quite accurate ( Public service laws require a certain precision since you're being charged for the power). ( The number Kh stamped on the label is watt hours/revolution ). I recently bought a fully digital power meter from Newegg.com for US$17 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submit=ENEN=16521%205 0011445%204336IsNodeId=1Manufactory=11445bop=AndSpeTabStoreType=10C ompareItemList=336|82-715-001^82-715-001-05%23%2C82-715-005^82-715-005-05%23 which has also proved quite accurate. I haven't tried it with pathologically shaped waveforms, though. Yes -- a $20,000 scope would be better :-) . My guess is it's using the new ICs designed for the electronic versions of smart utility meters. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 6:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I win because THEY used the wrong equipment, despite specific warnings. No, you lose because you did not read what I said: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Power meters can NOT be relied on. Bull$hit! The right instruments used correctly provide accurate results. Plus, there are perfectly good power measuring instruments that are not oscilloscopes. T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2010Levi-Report-RossiDemo.pdf Power from the 220V line was monitor and logged by a “WATTUP?” Pro Es power meter. Plus a clamp-on ammeter. So you think that a watt meter can be wrong by a factor of 200 (16 kw)? Or by a factor of 1,600 (130 kW)? Because if cannot be anywhere near that wrong, you are wasting your time considering it. I understand that these are merely hypothetical examinations of what *could* happen. However, when you consider how a trick might work, you should pay some attention to how that trick might fail to work, and to the fact that if the person testing the machine took even minimal common-sense precautions, or looked closely at the machine, the trick would be immediately revealed. The thing is, I could add dozens more impossible tricks, or a hundred more variations. For example, maybe Rossi waited until the professors left the room for a moment and then swapped instruments with fake one. Where would he find ones that looked exactly alike? Well, he hired someone to brake into their labs, photograph the equipment, and make an exact duplicate. The FBI did this in a episode of the Soprano's. Sure, it could happen. Or, lets say, when they were not looking, he substituted a machine that looked exactly the same except it had a fuel line going through one of the legs. Or, he hypnotized them, and by power of persuasion and post-hypnotic suggestion, made them believe they saw 130 kW. That could happen too! Hypnosis is remarkable. I could go on like that all day, getting farther and farther removed from reality. I have not addressed the fact that they are now testing the gadget in Rossi's absence and they will soon open it up and find whatever trick he is using. Forget about motive or the likelihood of anyone actually doing this. If we fantasize and assume that anything can happen, we can come up with an endless series of reasons why *any* experiment might be fake or wrong. You can disprove the moon landings. The skeptics have been doing that for years with Pd-D experiments by McKubre and others. I could a far better job than they do, and not a single one of their hypotheses is worth considering, but that does not stop them. You need to draw the line, and exclude tricks that any experienced person would detect in a few minutes. You need to exclude tricks that only the FBI would have the resources to do. The trick has to be plausible, or it is a waste of time thinking about it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
I've answered some of the arguments to the Torello fake in the latest version : http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v318.php The Jan/Feb experiment reports say they did NOT check the end of the outlet pipe. The March experiment says they DID make a visual check. I did the calculations on heat leakage from the outer HOT compartment to the inner COLD tube -- for a thick rubber tube, it's at most 80W, out of the 300W input. This fake is plausible enough that it MUST be checked against -- specifically, by measuring the output temperature and steam dryness OUTSIDE of the eCAT. Cut-and paste from 3.18 follows, but the format may be erratic : 1.1. Arguments about the Torelli Fake Rothwell Okay, what insulator would you use inside the pipe? You need something thin enough to allow the water through and yet effective at 1 L/s with a 31°C temperature difference for the apparent 130 kW heat in the Feb. 10 test. The duration of the 130kW was unspecified, so I'll stick with the March experiment. If we use the above diagram, with a 3 cm diameter outer section, and put a 1cm diameter bypass through the device, with a diversion ratio of 1/16 to 15/16 (roughly equal to the given power ratio). The bypass tube could be rubber (a reasonable insulator). Thermal Conductivity : watts / m.K Rubber is 0.16 : Area A = 2 * 3.1415 * 0.500 * 100.000 = 314.1500 cm2 Thickness Y : 0.500 cm dT = 100 - 20 = 80.000 k of rubber = 0.160 Watts = k * dT * A / Y = 0.160 * 80.000 * 0.03141500 / 0.005 = 80.4224 Even this value could be handled in the fake, which had 300W of electrical power available. : the amount of water diverted would have to take this loss into account. Since the water would warm up as it passes through the reactor the average dT would actually be less than that just calculated. The bypass could be engineered to minimise this loss. It could be arranged to be in contact with the outer wall, so the effective transfer area would be reduced. Wrap it in a (waterproofed) Silica Aerogel (0.004 to 0.04) and the problem goes away. Why wouldn't Levi et al. notice that they cannot insert thermocouples more than a faction of the way into the hose? (If they could insert it and it did not penetrate the barrier, it would block the middle channel.) They didn't insert it into the hose. They inserted it into the instrument port. The above diagram shows the bypass tube in the center of the chimney. It could be at the side (or even hidden by a false wall near the instrument port). Stephen A. Lawrence : Vortex It's totally ruled out if the effluent is observed to be steam and the output temperature is claimed to be roughly 100C. Whether wet steam or dry steam, if it's coming out as steam, then the outlet temperature is at least 100C, and the placement of the temperature probe is irrelevant. During the first test, back in ... uh ... January?, the effluent was observed to be steam during at least part of the run, and this effect couldn't have been an issue. The probe was always placed in the outer Hot compartment. Nobody reported in January that they checked for steam coming OUT of the hose. Nobody reported in February that they measured the temperature of the water coming out of the hose. Rothwell However, in this test, the outlet temperature is measured in the chimney. That is large enough to implement this trick fairly easily, with steam passing the thermocouple, well insulated from the stream of cold water. However, the outlet tube would be close to tap water temperature, which would be a dead giveaway. I am assuming someone had the sense to hold a hand near it or touch it for a moment. I would do that the moment I saw the test. To make the black tube hot, you have to imagine there is barrier within the hose that allows a thin layer of steam to pass on the outside at a high temperature without being cooled by the water in the center. It is moving at 1.7 ml/s. From the photo I suppose that hose is 1 cm OD and 0.8 cm ID, which is to say a volume of 0.5 cm^3 per centimeter of hose. So if the water is liquid, it is moving about 4 cm per second. It would cool down a short distance from the chimney. Real steam moving out of that hose would reach a lot farther than 4 cm per second, and heat the entire hose. There would still be a lot of steam coming out of the end of the hose in the bathroom. The output tube used in March is considerably thicker than 1 cm. Looks about 2 cm at least. The fake I'm proposing does have a coaxial tube for some arbitrary distance in the output hose, so the outside of the hose will indeed feel hot. The thermal conductivity analysis above could be aplied here. Thinking aloud here ... first see how long it takes for the diverted water to go through the tube. flow 6.470 L/Hr = 1.797 cc/sec Hot: 0.112 cc/sec Cold: 1.685 cc/sec inner tube radius : 0.500 cm length : 100.000 cm volume : 78.538 cc time in reactor : 46.613 secs
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
At 09:09 PM 4/12/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've updated http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_frames_v317.php to include a fake which was actually proposed back in February : http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg42228.html Although not likely I rate it as NOT ELIMINATED by ANY of the experiments or reports. If people will recall, my position is that it's impossible to completely eliminate, at this point, all possible modes of fakery. Because we are not at this point yet -- it will take wide, independent confirmation to be absolutely certain -- we shouldn't bet the farm on Rossi. I do know that serious research effort is now being diverted into work to investigate the nickel-hydrogen system, as a result of Rossi, but it's being done with eyes wide open, I hope. Anyone investing in this should carefully consider the risks. But in the other direction, I see people, such as the administrator TenOfAllTrades, on Wikipedia, and I suspect he's a scientist, coming out confidently with assertions that this is bogus, and attempting to impeach the Swedish reporter, etc. Bogus is unlikely at this point, the modes and mechanisms for fakery have become difficult enough that relying on them would be foolish, and these scientists are only betting on what we already know is an error, the supposed impossibility of LENR, which was never a scientific belief, it was politics and assumption and arrogance, from the beginning. I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss.
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I'll say it, Rossi is probably real. I would say almost certainly real. But I and everyone else can, sometimes, be fooled. The only way to totally avoid being fooled would be to believe nobody, and even then, we'd fool ourselves, and we'd disbelieve a lot of honest, sincere people. A loss. Well said. I agree. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
I think it is a great way to fake it. harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 9:22:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests to prove that it can be done in the first place? If you include every half-baked notion that skeptics come up with, you can easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did not occur, and Newton's Laws are wrong. You need to be a little more selective. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Harry Veeder wrote: I think it is a great way to fake it. Okay, what insulator would you use inside the pipe? You need something thin enough to allow the water through and yet effective at 1 L/s with a 31°C temperature difference for the apparent 130 kW heat in the Feb. 10 test. Why wouldn't Levi et al. notice that they cannot insert the thermocouples more than a faction of the way into the hose? (If they could insert it and it did not penetrate the barrier, it would block the middle channel.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
After seeing Harry's comment, I finally went and read the proposed mechanism. I have a couple comments on it. * It's totally ruled out if the effluent is observed to be steam and the output temperature is claimed to be roughly 100C. Whether wet steam or dry steam, if it's coming out as steam, then the outlet temperature is at least 100C, and the placement of the temperature probe is irrelevant. During the first test, back in ... uh ... January?, the effluent was observed to be steam during at least part of the run, and this effect couldn't have been an issue. Assuming all tests of the E-cat are operated basically the same way (and, if they're faked, they're all faked the same way), we should probably conclude that this effect is never an issue, and its possibility can be ignored. * With that said, the proposed mechanism is not that different from Swarz's ad-nauseum-repeated claims of stratification in vertical flow calorimetry, and,/ if the water isn't being heated to boiling,/ it could conceivably happen /by mistake/. (If the probe were placed in the effluent pipe outside the reactor, that possibility wouldn't exist.) * Finally, if the probe is actually in a backwash, dead zone, or side channel, isolated from the main flow, then that could explain an interesting feature of the temperature plot from the recently uploaded paper on this: From 20 to 40 C, the temperature goes up /linearly/, with slope apparently unchanged at 40 C. That shouldn't happen -- the line should nose over, with the slope decreasing smoothly as the water temperature increases, because maintaining the internal temperature gradient as the water warms must siphon off energy needed to keep warming up the device. That should be the case, /unless/ the reactor is starting up immediately, and its heat output is ramping up exactly in parallel with the warming of the water. As noted in my annotated copy of the graph (previously posted), if the heater's sourcing 300 watts at 20 C, and the slope of the warming curve doesn't change, then by the time it's at 40 C, it must be sourcing 450 watts. There's an extra 150 watts coming from someplace ... unless the flow rate /at the probe/ is nearly nil, in which case the temperature of the water /at the probe/ doesn't affect the heat needed to maintain the slope of the warming curve. On 04/13/2011 02:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I think it is a great way to fake it. harry *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tue, April 12, 2011 9:22:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests to prove that it can be done in the first place? If you include every half-baked notion that skeptics come up with, you can easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did not occur, and Newton's Laws are wrong. You need to be a little more selective. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: - Finally, if the probe is actually in a backwash, dead zone, or side channel, isolated from the main flow . . . In the Feb. 10 test, at 1 L/s there can be no such thing as a backwash or dead zone. This test also had a Delta-T as much as 31°C, which I think is impossible with any kind of barrier in the tube. The March 29 test had the slowest flow rate thus far reported: 500 ml over 278 s. That's 1.7 ml/s or 108 ml/min. I have never heard of a problem with dead spots or mixing at over 30 ml/min. However, in this test, the outlet temperature is measured in the chimney. That is large enough to implement this trick fairly easily, with steam passing the thermocouple, well insulated from the stream of cold water. However, the outlet tube would be close to tap water temperature, which would be a dead giveaway. I am assuming someone had the sense to hold a hand near it or touch it for a moment. I would do that the moment I saw the test. To make the black tube hot, you have to imagine there is barrier within the hose that allows a thin layer of steam to pass on the outside at a high temperature without being cooled by the water in the center. It is moving at 1.7 ml/s. From the photo I suppose that hose is 1 cm OD and 0.8 cm ID, which is to say a volume of 0.5 cm^3 per centimeter of hose. So if the water is liquid, it is moving about 4 cm per second. It would cool down a short distance from the chimney. Real steam moving out of that hose would reach a lot farther than 4 cm per second, and heat the entire hose. There would still be a lot of steam coming out of the end of the hose in the bathroom. I think that is science fiction. By the way, regarding the hypothesis that wet steam has 20 times less enthalpy than dry steam, I thought back to the steam engines I used to play with as a child. I have one of them on the shelf here, a Wilesco D6 model: http://www.ministeam.com/acatalog/Wilesco_Steam_.html This steam is often quite wet when the machine first starts turning. A mixture of steam and hot water spurt out of the cylinder for quite a while before it finally comes out as clear (invisible) steam vapor. The total enthalpy can be estimated roughly by the speed of the turning wheel. You bank the fire a little and the wheel slows down immediately. I did not measure the revolutions but from the sound and vibration it is obvious that the RPMs are changing. I'm sure that if the enthalpy was only 1/20 of the total when the steam was wet, the wheel would not turn at all. There is quite a lot of friction from the cylinder and wheel bearings. I cannot imagine where the 95% of the heat from the flame would hide while the machine spits out a mixture of hot water and steam. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Whoa! The D18 model has an electric generator and light, and they have a movie of it running! See: http://www.toysteam.net/wid18final.wmv You can hear the sound change as the RPMs change. The thing runs much smoother with fewer vibrations than the D6 model. The D2 will vibrate itself off a table at full speed. You can see the D15 doing that and making a wonderful racket: http://www.toysteam.net/wid15final.wmv Great stuff! Rossi should get a 4 kW steam engine for his next demo. I'll bet you can find one somewhere. Steam engines are nifty machines. These little ones make a lot of noise, but the big ones are quieter per kilowatt than an internal combustion engine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
On 04/13/2011 03:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Whoa! The D18 model has an electric generator and light, and they have a movie of it running! See: http://www.toysteam.net/wid18final.wmv You can hear the sound change as the RPMs change. The thing runs much smoother with fewer vibrations than the D6 model. The D2 will vibrate itself off a table at full speed. You can see the D15 doing that and making a wonderful racket: http://www.toysteam.net/wid15final.wmv Great stuff! Rossi should get a 4 kW steam engine for his next demo. Hey, if he does that, he can close the loop, and get rid of the external power supply for the heater! I'll bet you can find one somewhere. Steam engines are nifty machines. These little ones make a lot of noise, but the big ones are quieter per kilowatt than an internal combustion engine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
I know where the excess heat comes from ! Are all those *warm *regards in his blog ? On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 04/13/2011 03:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Whoa! The D18 model has an electric generator and light, and they have a movie of it running! See: http://www.toysteam.net/wid18final.wmv You can hear the sound change as the RPMs change. The thing runs much smoother with fewer vibrations than the D6 model. The D2 will vibrate itself off a table at full speed. You can see the D15 doing that and making a wonderful racket: http://www.toysteam.net/wid15final.wmv Great stuff! Rossi should get a 4 kW steam engine for his next demo. Hey, if he does that, he can close the loop, and get rid of the external power supply for the heater! I'll bet you can find one somewhere. Steam engines are nifty machines. These little ones make a lot of noise, but the big ones are quieter per kilowatt than an internal combustion engine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
From Stephen: ... http://www.toysteam.net/wid15final.wmv Great stuff! Rossi should get a 4 kW steam engine for his next demo. Hey, if he does that, he can close the loop, and get rid of the external power supply for the heater! ... Oh, the irony of it all! Granted, to prove that OU exists we all want to see Rossi close the loop on his gadget. However, as has been tragically revealed at the Fukushima nuclear plant, for safety reasons, completely closing the loop is not a good idea. I seem to recall Rossi expressed similar safety issues in terms of maintaining temperature stability within the e-cat reactor core. Meanwhile, I must confess the fact that I'm still confused over the matter of how the supplied external heater actually helps stabilize Rossi's reactor core. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Hey, if he does that, he can close the loop, and get rid of the external power supply for the heater! sigh You clearly are not paying attention. He cannot. A candle needs a match. T
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: sigh You clearly are not paying attention. He cannot. A candle needs a match. A minor detail. They could jump start it with mains electricity and then after the water boils and the steam engine begins turning, disconnect the mains and go to generator only. This is like starting a car from a manual crank or battery. You could use a battery for the E-Cat, but it would have to be large, since it takes a while for a steam engine to get up to speed. Rossi has often claimed that he needs mains electricity to ensure safety. So what happens if the power fails? I guess there is a way to scram the reactor. Dump the hydrogen and fill it with nitrogen? I should probably add to that list, Needs electricity for stable operation. Heat after death possible but not recommended. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: I think it is a great way to fake it. Okay, what insulator would you use inside the pipe? You need something thin enough to allow the water through and yet effective at 1 L/s with a 31°C temperature difference for the apparent 130 kW heat in the Feb. 10 test. I don't know. Probably with the given exhaust tube it would not be possible. However, I find this tube-within-a-tube-scheme to be more devious than a concealed source of power. Harry Why wouldn't Levi et al. notice that they cannot insert the thermocouples more than a faction of the way into the hose? (If they could insert it and it did not penetrate the barrier, it would block the middle channel.)
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
Rossi's device would have to be modified to make the concept of a tube-within-a-tube workable, but IMO a system based on this concept would be more likely to fool an investor than a system based on a hidden power source. Harry from: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, April 13, 2011 2:48:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake After seeing Harry's comment, I finally went and read the proposed mechanism. I have a couple comments on it. * It's totally ruled out if the effluent is observed to be steam and the output temperature is claimed to be roughly 100C. Whether wet steam or dry steam, if it's coming out as steam, then the outlet temperature is at least 100C, and the placement of the temperature probe is irrelevant. During the first test, back in ... uh ... January?, the effluent was observed to be steam during at least part of the run, and this effect couldn't have been an issue. Assuming all tests of the E-cat are operated basically the same way (and, if they're faked, they're all faked the same way), we should probably conclude that this effect is never an issue, and its possibility can be ignored. * With that said, the proposed mechanism is not that different from Swarz's ad-nauseum-repeated claims of stratification in vertical flow calorimetry, and,if the water isn't being heated to boiling, it could conceivably happen by mistake. (If the probe were placed in the effluent pipe outside the reactor, that possibility wouldn't exist.) * Finally, if the probe is actually in a backwash, dead zone, or side channel, isolated from the main flow, then that could explain an interesting feature of the temperature plot from the recently uploaded paper on this: From 20 to 40 C, the temperature goes up linearly, with slope apparently unchanged at 40 C. That shouldn't happen -- the line should nose over, with the slope decreasing smoothly as the water temperature increases, because maintaining the internal temperature gradient as the water warms must siphon off energy needed to keep warming up the device. That should be the case, unless the reactor is starting up immediately, and its heat output is ramping up exactly in parallel with the warming of the water. As noted in my annotated copy of the graph (previously posted), if the heater's sourcing 300 watts at 20 C, and the slope of the warming curve doesn't change, then by the time it's at 40 C, it must be sourcing 450 watts. There's an extra 150 watts coming from someplace ... unless the flow rate at the probe is nearly nil, in which case the temperature of the water at the probe doesn't affect the heat needed to maintain the slope of the warming curve. On 04/13/2011 02:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I think it is a great way to fake it. harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 9:22:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests to prove that it can be done in the first place? If you include every half-baked notion that skeptics come up with, you can easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did not occur, and Newton's Laws are wrong. You need to be a little more selective. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests to prove that it can be done in the first place? If you include every half-baked notion that skeptics come up with, you can easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did not occur, and Newton's Laws are wrong. You need to be a little more selective. - Jed
