*This also will be posted to Vortex -----------------------------------------------------
Hi Mats, *In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time. *Rossi's demos have always emphasized saving time over being accurate and complete. Of course, that makes no sense when introducing the greatest invention of the century. Rossi should have taken the time even if it meant running into the night or in shifts. He should have run for days or even weeks under continuous observation. I often read the excuse that Rossi doesn't want to be convincing. In that case, why show anything at all to reporters and scientists? Why not have only private demos?* As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a possible explanation in itself. You simply would need an additional heat source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my own thermometer). *I understand. But a famous con man once said, if there is any the part of the con that you don't get, it's the part that will get you. I don't pretend to know how Rossi may be faking if he is. One needs to consider it could be that he's audacious and resourceful enough to rely on combinations of illusions. He could rely on storage of the warmup heat *and* a source of chemical, change of state, or other extraneous source. And if it's an illusion, it could also depend on deliberately inaccurate measurement of enthalpy at the output end. Different methods of cheating could be used in different demonstrations. And Rossi could have been lucky although I admit most con men don't rely on luck. Rossi has resisted many suggestions from many sources. He won't use foolproof methods of enthalpy measurement such as direct liquid cooling or sparging the steam into an insulated contained. He refuses to make long runs. He uses tangential excuses that he's more interested in customer satisfaction than in proving the principle to the world -- yet he won't name a single customer. Even more telling, after all the time that went by, he won't name a single credible person or organization who has independently tested the device and has come up with a positive result. He has not given an E-cat to any university despite his claims to a plentiful supply. And he won't let anyone repeat Levi's excellent and fairly long February run which was said to have gone 18 hours and used only liquid coolant.* A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything.* The blank could have been done with new E-cats, innocent of hydrogen. That might be a bit hard on Rossi but he claims to have made and tested hundreds or even thousands. Of course Rossi could control an extraneous heat source, even in a blank test. However, the purpose of the blank/control/calibration run isn't so much to rule out extraneous heat sources. It's to verify the proper functioning and approximate calibration of the heat exchanger and of the output temperature and flow sensors -- the whole enthalpy measurement chain. That includes such things as thermocouple placement. Why go at that with a complex simulation when you can simply make a measurement to rule it in or out as a factor? To further rule out an extraneous heat source would require a long experiment -- much longer than any Rossi has done to date and in keeping with NASA's suggestions published by Krivit. I suppose that a fraudulent, extraneous heat input could possibly be continuous but that can be ruled out pretty well by the sort of inspection you did before the run. And there is absolutely no valid reason to shut down a purported nuclear fusion reactor after a four hour run when the reactor is claimed to go for six or more months without refueling or any other attention. I understand that only completely independent experiments (not involving Rossi's lab, his power source, his pump and coolant and especially his enthalpy measurement methods) are necessary to absolutely rule out fraud. However, simply by insisting on a control/blank/calibration run and a long enough run, and the pre-run inspections, one could make it vastly more difficult and impractical for Rossi to cheat. To date, I have not seen that done. I am also struck by the absence of such questions from public post-demonstration interviews and exchanges with Rossi, Focardi and Levi except for Krivit's. Maybe everyone is a bit too gentle and polite with Rossi or maybe it happened and I just didn't read it or hear it. I'd like to see his feet held to the fire every time he appears in public and for interviews about the short duration and lack of proper calibration and blanking of all his previous demos as well as about the anonymity of his supposed client. I notice you don't receive mailing from Vortex. If you'd like to join, simply follow the directions here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/info.html Thanks so much for the excellent and difficult work and for your comments. M. Y.*
