> From: "Jeff Driscoll" <hcarb...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 10:03:07 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device > Alan's website seems to have mistakes -
I don't doubt it !!!!! I put it up here for review. > http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_v2.php > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density > > Alan does calculations assuming that Rossi's 1 liter reactor (as > described by professor Levi) was filled with some type of chemical > that could heat the water. Supposedly the February test ran 16 kW on > average for 18 hours. > (16,000 W) x (18 hour) x (3600 sec/hour) x (1 J/sec per Watt) x (1 > MJ/1000000 W) = 1037 MJ emitted by 1 liter. This means there needs to > be a chemical that has an energy density of 1037 MJ/liter No ... I'm NOT saying that 1 liter of X will run it at 16KW for 18 hours. I'm calculating how long it COULD theoretically run at that power level. If the candidate runs out of steam BEFORE the recorded end of the trial, then it fails, and is a FAKE. If the candidate can run longer than the trial then it is NOT eliminated. Either the experiment has to be more constrained, or it has to be run longer. > For example at the end of his website Alan incorrectly writes that 1 > liter of diesel would run 7.25 hours if it were producing 16 kW and > using external air. The correct number is that 1 liter of diesel could > run only 0.55 hours at 16 kW. This is 17.45 hours short of the actual > run of 18 hours. I'll triple-check my numbers. I'll upload the Excell spreadsheet. > So diesel has an energy density (MJ/liter) that is off by a factor of ... > etc ... I'll hold off on reviewing the rest of your numerical comments for now until I'm sure my numbers are right or (more likely) I've corrected the spreadsheet. Thinks ... maybe I'll redo the calculations in Javascript, so my calculations can be checked directly. (In most web browsers you can "view source".) Some of your other comments also apply to Jed's : > From: "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:56:33 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Detecting a Fake 10KW Rossi/Focardi eCat Device > I forgot to mention: Levi looked in the control unit and found no > battery or fuel, just electronics. This was described in NyTeknik. So > you can delete the sections about the Control Unit such as: > > "Fuel Cell using Compressed Hydrogen in the Control Unit" I'm reporting on both the January and February trials. The document is a bit of a mess in that respect, as I visit the same material three different times. I think I'll separate out the various methods (eg Hydrogen+Fuel Cell, Hydrogen + Air ....) and then refer to these for the two experiments. The January trial MUST include the control box. The February trial is at the moment "anecdotal" --- particularly as it has only ONE observer, and we don't have a report yet. Also, it misses a key element for me -- the TOTAL volume of the reactor, not just the "chamber". I'll leave the January trial IN, as a historical record. > Actually, in real life, the entire concept of chemistry or electricity > causing this effect is impossible ... > You can't just generate the heat inside the secret compartment; you > also have to transfer it to the flowing water, and you have to keep > the fuel tank from exploding. So a calculation based on the volume of > fuel alone is totally unrealistic. ..... > This is interesting to think about, but there is not the slightest > chance the effect is actually chemical. I agree with you entirely. As soon as you start talking about "how could the fake be implemented" then you open up whole new avenues of denying the experiment. "Gee .. maybe you could implement THAT in a more efficient way and pass the test." (Picking a random thought out of my head : if I used gasoline and air, I could just spray water into the flame and avoid the need for a heat exchanger.) That's not to say that discussing the details of fakes isn't interesting ... I'll incorporate some of the comments into the document. (I tend to over-write stuff and then prune it back if needed.) I thought that my "Devil's Advocate" line and Methodology section were clear -- I'll rewrite them with a 2x4 .. I'm reducing all adjectives (unlikely, implausible ... ) to "impossible" and all probabilities to ZERO. Alan ps I'm out of town part of this week ... so it may be a while before I do all that.
