Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Alan, I guess I'm not making myself clear. There is no need for a DC bias of the power input. The wire trick (simply running a complete second circuit with both conductors hidden in a single wire), uses only the normal A/C voltage supplied by the mains. It isn't the voltage that is rigged, it is the current. The report states that the phase 3 hot wire appeared to have no current flow. If that wire were rigged so it provided the same amount of power as the other two legs, then the actual staady-state power input would be completely normal A/C, but varying between 1200 Watts and 400 Watts, instead of the measured 800 Watts and 0 Watts. This provides an apparent COP of 2.5, which is exactly what they measured. Your model shows that there is no apparent excess power until the E-Cat reaches operating temperature. This could be easily accomplished with the addition of a thermostatically-controlled switch for the 3rd phase line (thus being totally automatic in operation). John
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Jack Cole said:
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Jack Cole said: This is easily disproved. Look at the temperature output graph. How does you notion of constant power instead of a 33% duty cycle explain the dips as rises indicative of a 33% duty cycle in the output corresponding with the measured power on cycles. I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that the there was an EXTRA 400 Watts, supplied continuously, in addition to the measured power. Thus, the same 33% duty cycle would vary between 1200 Watts and 400 Watts. Imagine the existing chart, but with the power in line moved UP by 1/3. This makes the power out line look just like a lump of steel, with no signs of excess power. I haven't heard any reasonable explanation of why the 3rd-leg of the 3-phase power in was left in place, even though it appeared to be doing nothing. If the testers really were doing their own surgery on the power in lines, why did they leave a supposedly non-functional line attached between the power outlet and the E-Cat controller? If they weren't doing their own surgery, then it would have been trivial to wire the 3rd, supposedly dead power line to produce the desired effect.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Alan, Have you tried your model with what I think is the most likely method of fraud: running full current through the supposedly dead 3rd phase wire? This would change the power input from an an average of 266 Watts (800 Watts * 0.33) to 666 Watts (800 Watts * 0.33 + 400 Watts * 1.0). This would produce an apparent COP of 2.5 (avg 666 Watts vs avg 266 Watts), which is just what the testers reported. John From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test From: Andrew andrew...@att.net Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:45:27 PM 2. The report shows the device temperature varying synchronously, up to a small phase lag, with the pulses. This is expected behaviour. The general fluctuation is expected, but the SHAPE of the curve is consistent only with a TRIANGULAR 150-sec rise, 150-sec fall (or possibly sawtooth) wave. It is NOT consistent with a DC offset applied either through the heater or the central reactor cylinder. (I have to check what a triangle applied to the heater would look like. I guess I should also try a 1/450 hz sine wave).
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I'll summarize the multiple emails, since I certainly don't want to flood the channel by responding to each email individually. Regarding the meter: Both the instruction manual and Mats Lewan (through an email from the manufacturer) verifies that the meter DOES NOT measure DC current. Therefore, the author's claim in the appendix that they discounted the possibility of a DC bias based on the measurements of that instrument is WRONG. Since they got that simple point wrong, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about their other conclusions, especially regarding the electrical input to the E-Cat. Regarding the wiring trick: Rothwell keeps stating that there must be a bare conductor available to measure the voltage, and that's true. But there is nothing in the report that indicates that the testers were the ones who did the surgery to access those test points. We know that Rossi provided the power cabling for the test (which, by itself, should have raised a red flag for anyone who actually was looking for fraud). We know that the authors described each separate wire as a cable in their description, and that they describe looking for extra cables (NOT conductors INSIDE of a cable). That's all we know from the report and appendix. Everything else is unwarranted assumption. If the authors really did perform the surgery to expose bare conductors and verify that each cable contained only a single conductor, they should publicly state that. Until they do, we have no reason to believe it. (Also, I would point out that the creator of the cheese videos had no trouble testing his power cord both for continuity and voltage without exposing his trick wiring.) I see that as I was typing this, Rothwell has sent at least two more messages my way. He seems to think I am so ignorant as to not realize that one must measure voltage on a bare conductor. Actually, there are ways of doing so, but I'm not suggesting that they were used in this case. Of course, they had access to some point of contact with the conductor. The question is exactly where, and who set up the bare wire. The report is silent on that matter. Meanwhile, the second cheese video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo) at 10:30 clearly shows that it's entirely possible to measure voltage on a rigged power cord. I STILL haven't seen any credible argument that the wiring trick could not have been used in this case. All we have is argument by repeated assertion by Rothwell and others that it couldn't have possibly happened because their assumptions about things never stated Meanwhile, if this simple trick was used, the results would very closely match what the authors report. That should at least raise some eyebrows. Is anyone in this group critical enough to realize that if the two possibilities are: 1) Rossi has the most significant and world-shaking discovery of the last century, or 2) Rossi had extra conductor in a suspicious, dead wire, that we shouldn't even consider option 2? There are at least 9 or 10 problems with the report: It took place in Rossi's facilities. The power-in testing was performed on wiring provided by Rossi. The two lead testers (at least) have been on record since 2011 as Rossi believers which risks According to Essen, it was only Rossi and Levi who decided what tests would be allowed and what test equipment would be available. The only temperature measurements were of the OUTSIDE of the furnace which contained both the E-Cat and the conventional electric heaters, leaving no way to directly determine how much heat each was providing. The power-in wires contained an extra conductor (the 3rd phase) line that, if Rossi really was using 3-phase power should have shown current flow. The wire was, allegedly, just sitting there doing nothing. Nothing in the report excludes the possibility of the wiring trick in that 3rd dead wire. If the wiring trick was used in as simple a way as possible, it would produce an apparent COP of 2.5; just what the authors claim to have measured. The test was kept secret until long after it was concluded, making it impossible for any criticisms or suggestions to be included. Rossi made it impossible to falsify the report because we can't replicate it. (I know Rossi claims that he will have more tests. It will be very interesting to see if the testers really do work to eliminate these and other problems).
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
David Roberson said: The problem is that the bar can always be raised higher when one is seeking proof of a system. Maybe I am wrong, but I have a strong suspicion that there is virtually no test that Rossi could perform which would not afford those who seek misconduct an avenue of attack. This is not a problem that Rossi alone faces. For instance, why should we assume that the Higgs was recently discovered when I am confident that it would be easy to come up with a million reasons to doubt it. This is typical of any new advancement. For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. I find it difficult to understand what you refer to by suggesting that the Rossi device is hidden inside a furnace and not measurable. There seems to be a lot of that going on among the believers. Rossi's setup makes it impossible to distinguish the heat being generated by the heating elements from the heat (if any) being generated by the E-Cat. There is no particular reason for that to be intrinsic to the process. Rossi could have easily provided a larger furnace, and then put thermocouples directly on the actual E-Cat (the inner cylinder) AND the inside of the furnace, allowing direct measurements of both. If the E-Cat got hotter than the furnace, it would be clear evidence that the E-Cat was generating its own energy. If not, then it was just a passive component. But Rossi chose not to set it up that way, and the testers obligingly went along with him. One claim he makes is that the COP of his device remains around 6. But that's not true. When he was doing his steam demos, he kept getting a COP of about 6, which just happens to be the error rate if one isn't really converting the vast majority of water into steam. And now, he's getting a COP of 2.5, which just happens to be exactly the error one would see if one were secretly using that extra, dead wire to add an extra 400 Watts or so. Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being measured by the camera system, not how it is generated. Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I have suggested a simple trick to add a constant ~400 Watts to the input power level, and that extra amount just happens to exactly explain the entire output power level. That doesn't prove that Rossi used this trick, but it certainly suggest that he could have done so.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
David Roberson said: You missed the point. I was only discussing the output power in this section and not referring to the input at all. That is a different issue. Do you suggest that there is no doubt about the claim of the Higgs being discovered? You missed the point here. A higher COP would have been in his favor. He has no reason to claim a low COP in all the public writings if he intended to commit fraud. I would have chosen a higher one just as you if if was not going to be proven. You can't treat the input and output as different issues. If the input measurements were in error, the output measurements are meaningless. I don't understand your point about the Higgs Boson. Just last year, CERN announced that they had confirmed faster-than-light neutrinos. They were wrong. It seems to me that you're the one refusing to consider that Levi et al might be wrong. Rossi's tricks can't violate the laws of physics, regardless of his claims. If his latest test had been run using nothing but a few flashlight batteries, it would have been impressive. But to do that he really would need a miraculous new invention. Instead, he only showed as much excess power as could have been easily drawn from the power source to which the E-Cat was attached. Just as his steam demos (the ones with more than a single guest at least) never showed more power than one could fake by pretending to vaporize all of the water, while in fact only vaporizing a tiny portion of it. (If you calculate the apparent COP of your coffeemaker, assuming that ALL of the water in it was being vaporized. You'll find that the apparent COP is right around 6. That's the difference in power required to heat water from room temperature to boiling vs. actually vaporizing it.) Even his Megawatt E-Cat (which didn't actually demonstrate anything at all) had a diesel generator, capable of generating the claimed excess power, sitting right next to the E-Cat, running the whole time. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Your only question should be whether or not the total heat is what is being measured by the camera system, not how it is generated. 'Nonsense! If the input was faked, then the output is meaningless. I have suggested a simple trick to add a constant ~400 Watts to the input power level, and that extra amount just happens to exactly explain the entire output power level. That doesn't prove that Rossi used this trick, but it certainly suggest that he could have done so.' You missed the point. I was only discussing the output power in this section and not referring to the input at all. That is a different issue. 'For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc.' In either case, the proof is not there for a high bar. Do you suggest that there is no doubt about the claim of the Higgs being discovered? This is true for just about every scientific discovery in the past. One can always cast doubt. 'There seems to be a lot of that going on among the believers. Rossi's setup makes it impossible to distinguish the heat being generated by the heating elements from the heat (if any) being generated by the E-Cat. There is no particular reason for that to be intrinsic to the process. Rossi could have easily provided a larger furnace, and then put thermocouples directly on the actual E-Cat (the inner cylinder) AND the inside of the furnace, allowing direct measurements of both. If the E-Cat got hotter than the furnace, it would be clear evidence that the E-Cat was generating its own energy. If not, then it was just a passive component. But Rossi chose not to set it up that way, and the testers obligingly went along with him.' Come on now. Rossi is not inclined to make a large number of individual systems just to satisfy skeptics. What he did is adequate if one accepts the camera system as being accurate. He would be foolish to continue to modify the device for your enjoyment. ''But that's not true. When he was doing his steam demos, he kept getting a COP of about 6, which just happens to be the error rate if one isn't really converting the vast majority of water into steam. And now, he's getting a COP of 2.5, which just happens to be exactly the error one would see if one were secretly using that extra, dead wire to add an extra 400 Watts or so.' You missed the point here. A higher COP would have been in his favor. He has no reason to claim a low COP in all the public writings if he intended to commit fraud. I would have chosen a higher one just as you if if was not going to be proven. Dave
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely generous projects with routine $250k salaries would bite the dust! That is billions of dollars of bribe money, being paid out to an elite group to tow the company line ... That is far more despicable than Rossi struggling for investment capital. winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Ed, Nothing I've said here makes any reference to the topic of LENR. It is entirely possible that LENR is real and Rossi is a fraud. John From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, it is not a rant. Hot fusion is dead. It will never be a practical source of energy in its present form. I'm not the only person who has come to this conclusion. Nevertheless, as long as money is spent on this method, a large self interest is supported to reject CF and to continue funding HF. That is the reality of the world. As for questioning Rossi, this needs to be done. However, it can be done while accepting the reality of the LENR effect. The only unknown is whether Rossi is using LENR to make energy. I believe he is and with increasing success. I wish him well. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference to me and to anything I hold dear whether he is a fraud or not. He will succeed or fail based on his own efforts. I'm much more interested in the fraud the financial industry applies to the housing market. Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 11:47 AM, John Milstone wrote: Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene wrote: From: John Milstone For starters, CERN isn't selling franchises to the Higgs Boson. CERN doesn't rely on secret customers and secret experts to validate their work. Etc, etc. This is complete bull crap ! Big Science is doing much worse than that. But more so with regard to ITER or NOVA or Hot Fusion or other Big Science projects that are threatened by LENR than with CERN. The physics establishment is essentially selling franchises to every overpaid PhD and yes-man techie on the large staffs - who would be fired, if this kind of no-bid work were to be made moot by LENR. CERN might survive, but ITER and other extremely
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
I guess you haven't bothered actually reading my earlier posts. sigh With the dead wire rigged to supply power continuously, we would see a modulation of the input power of 1200 Watts (400 from each of the 2 live phases plus 400 Watts from the dead phase) for 2 minutes, followed by 400 Watts (just from the dead phase) for 4 minutes, repeating. Instead of the claimed power input (400 Watts * 2 phases * 33% duty cycle = 266.6 Watts (average), the E-Cat (actually, the heating coils in the tube furnace) would have 400 Watts * 3 phases * 33% duty cycle + 400 Watts * 66% duty cycle = 666.6 Watts (average). This gives an observed COP of 2.5, just what the report describes. No laser beams. No magic paint. No tricky DC bias or high-frequency signals inserted into the normal A/C power supply. Just one hidden conductor in the supposedly dead wire. (If the wire wasn't doing anything, why was it left in the circuit?) John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John, Please explain how the dead wire you discuss is able to deliver a continuous power into the control box while still explaining the modulation of the output power and temperature as seen by the IR camera system. If, as you imply, power is continually sent to the power resistors you need to explain how the waveforms fail to show any indication of this. Also, the input power matches quite well with the output power determination in the time domain. Where the graphs show power going into the control box, temperature is rising on the exterior of the device. Why do you suppose this is so? Reference to continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data. Dave -Original Message- From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Nice attempt by Benne, Storms (I'm surprised that he piled on), and Roberson to deflect the issue. There is still the issue that Rossi has a supposedly dead phase on his 3-phase power cabling, and that that additional wire, if it were actually live (as per the wiring gimmick in question), would have provided exactly the amount of power allegedly being generated by the E-Cat (conveniently hidden inside of a furnace out of sight of the IR camera). Regarding your specific rant, attempting to discredit hot fusion (or other branches of conventional physics) does nothing to enhance LENR. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I agree Ed. Both you and Jones have stated the situation eloquently and I hope that John gives considerable thought to what has been said. I suppose that one reason that any current modern physics determination can be overturned by a knowledgeable skeptic is that they all are the current ideas which one day will be replaced by updated ones. This is scientific progress as it should be. For example, Newton's old laws were assumed perfect at the time, but Einstein came along and improved them with his breakthroughs. So, now Rossi has his device under scrutiny by the skeptics who can always find some reason to complain. Most if not all of the reasons thus far suggested are invalid, but the skeptics seem to keep themselves occupied. This is their job and they would not know how to behave otherwise so I guess we have to cut them some slack. I would be concerned if what they spread throughout the Internet were able to delay the solution to many of the needs of mankind. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Well said, JONES!!! This is exactly the situation. Physics has sold the governments of the world on spending money for research that has practically no value. This use of money limits what else can be explored and greatly distorts what can be discovered. LENR has been rejected and held to a very high standard simply because it threatens this spending, as you so clearly state. When LENR is finally applied at a level that even an idiot will have to accept, the physics community will have to explain why this acceptance took so long when so much evidence was available and when the need for the energy was so great. Careful evaluation and rational skepticism is important but rational limits must be applied because EVERYTHING believed by science can be rejected by a determined skeptic. We would still be in the Dark Ages if rational limits to skepticism had not been agreed to and applied in science. Why is so hard to do now with LENR? Ed On Jun 21, 2013
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
FWIW, I put together a new version of Plot 8 from the original report, showing the full Y axis and adding the power-in if the wire trick were being used. As you can see, the relationship between power in and power out is unchanged. The only difference is that the E-Cat now gives a very good approximation of an inert lump of metal. The chart is here: http://s10.postimg.org/btaoiv6eh/E_Cat_Power.png John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test Where the graphs show power going into the control box, temperature is rising on the exterior of the device. Why do you suppose this is so? Reference to continuous power input is not consistent with any of the data.
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
The wire trick puts both sides of the circuit in the same wire. It's nothing more than using a lamp cord masquerading as a single conductor wire (only using wires that don't make it obvious that there are actually two conductors in the same insulation. It doesn't require a coaxial cable, and it doesn't require DC power, or any other modifications to the AC power upstream of the power cable. It specifically fools clamp-on ammeters. Rossi claimed to be using 3-phase power, but the report disputes that. They show only 2 of three phases carrying any current. But the third phase hot wire shows (supposedly) zero current flow. If it really was not being used, why is it still in the circuit? If it was being used, and we assume it was carrying the same current as the other 2 phases, then the input power completely explains the output power, without the need for any LENR reaction. There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing surgery on the power lines. It's obvious from the description that the wires were separated (so the clamp-on ammeter could be used) and that there were spots where the conductors could be accessed for checking voltage, but nothing in the report says that it was the testers who made these preparations. It's clear that Rossi set up the power lines, so there is no particular reason not to believe that Rossi also did the prep work. And, if Rossi did this prep work, then it would have been easy for him to hide the gimmicked wiring. As for the testers not noticing the wiring gimmick: Since they failed to notice that their test equipment does not measure DC current at all, I'm not convinced that they were competent or diligent enough to detect such fraud. John From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test I admit I did not see your other posts. Sorry about that one. What you said does not add up yet. Current must go into a device and then return by some path. If, as you say, the dead wire is supplying AC current into the control for all time then where is the return current showing up? I recall a diagram that looked like it precluded that possibility. Every line had a current probe surrounding it. Are you back to DC power sneaking in? I hope you are not suggesting that the dead lead is a coaxial cable of some kind that went un noticed by the testers? This is a bit of a stretch. Dave
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Jed Rothwell said: Anyone who glances at voltmeter probe connected to a wire will see there is one conductor only, and not a second, insulated one under it. The second cheese video shows that this isn't true. He measures the voltage of his rigged power cord at about 10:30 into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo We know they took apart the power cable, checked it, put voltage probes on the exposed wire, and disconnected a wire. No, we don't know that. There is nothing in the report that even hints at this. You are ASSUMING that it was the testers who split out the various wires and stripped away the insulation. But nothing in the report says this. Since Rossi supplied the power cord, it's entirely possible that he also provided the split-out wires and the spots of bare wire for them to use to measure voltage. They said they brought all instruments and attached all instruments themselves. They said Rossi had no say in the mater and played no role. Then I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that they used the exact same model (perhaps the same unit) as Rossi has been using for the last several years. Essen made it clear in his comments after the release of the report that Levi was solely responsible for providing the test equipment, and it is obvious that he worked with Rossi on what testing would and would not be allowed. THEY set up the bare wire. That is what THEY said, clearly, in the report and elsewhere Not that I've seen. They certainly didn't say any such thing in the report. And I'm not aware that anyone has added any such statement afterwords. John
Re: [Vo]: About the March test
Again, it's clear from the full description that they were looking for additional WIRES. There is nothing about checking what was IN the wires. And the statement The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. doesn't address who connected the wires directly to the electrical outlet, or when it happened. You want it to mean that the testers did this themselves at the time of the test, but there is nothing in that statement that suggests that particular assumption. John From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: About the March test John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: There is nothing in the report that describes the testers performing surgery on the power lines. Please rephrase this. The report clearly states that they checked. QUOTE: The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It was established and verified that no other cable was present and that all connections were normal. . . . You should say I do not believe what the report says. Or: I do not believe these people can tell the difference between a bare wire and an insulated wire. That puts things in perspective. It is perfectly okay that you don't believe them. But please don't claim they never said they checked it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My response at Forbes: all assertions must be testable and falsifiable
Since Jed decided to debate me in absentia here on the Vortex, I thought I'd respond. Rothwell said: No, as Ian Walker already pointed out to you, it says in the Appendix they checked for it. Also they told me they did. Figure 1 shows a direct connection to each of the 3 wires (for voltage) in Suggesting that a schematic wiring diagram “proves” the exact details of the physical setup is silly. Are you suggesting that the connection for phase 3 is about 1/3 closer to the control box as the connection for phase 1? I hope not. From the report: The three-phase power cables were checked and connected directly to the electrical outlet. It was established and verified that no other cable was present and that all connections were normal. The ground cable was disconnected before measurements began. It’s clear that the authors of the report were using the term “cable” to refer to a single, insulated wire. They were looking for extra wires. Nothing in their description even suggests that they were looking for extra conductors in a single wire. The two “cheese” videos would easily pass the precautions as described. The creator of those videos didn’t need an extra “cable”, and was able to measure both continuity and voltage with the wiring trick in place. Rothwell said: He keeps insisting we can’t be sure the heat originates from inside the cell because they measure the temperature at the outside wall. You are distorting what I said. My reading of the report suggests that the actual “E-Cat” is a metal tube with sealed ends, which slides into the central cavity of a conventional tube furnace. But even if I was mistaken on this point, it doesn’t affect my argument. The device in the photos is a tube containing Rossi’s magic gadget AND conventional electrical resistance heaters. There is no way to prove that the heat being radiated from the surface came from the E-Cat and not the electric heaters. The testers used a finicky, 4th-power function to try to estimate how much heat is being produced. This is a dodgy way of determining how much of the heat came from the actual E-Cat, even if they could be certain that there wasn’t a trick to feed in extra power (and they failed miserably to prove that). But, all they know is that the device on average, produced about 2.5 times as much power as they measured going in. If their input measurements were wrong, then their estimated COP was wrong. Rothwell said: “There is not an extra wire. It is not dead. This is 3-phase power. Please look that up if you do not understand the concept. Look that up yourself. 3-phase power has three HOT lines, PLUS a neutral, plus a GROUND (which, according to the report, was disconnected). The report indicates that, although the device was connected to a 3-phase power outlet, only 2 phases were being used. They specifically state (and show in Fig. 3 of the Appendix) that only 2 phases were supposedly carrying any current. The 3rd phase wire “appears” dead. If this is correct, then Rossi was only using 2 of the 3 phases, and only for 1/3 of the time (i.e. a 33% duty cycle). Each of the “non-dead” phases was drawing about 400 Watts when turned on. At the very least, it is very suspicious that Rossi included a “dead” wire between the power source and the device, unless it wasn’t really “dead”. If the wiring trick had been used on that 3rd phase wire (the one that appeared to be dead), we can make a prediction about the apparent COP from such a deception. Let’s assume that the 3rd phase was carrying the same current as the other two phases (400 W), and that Rossi left it turned on 100% of the time (better for the fraud, and less likely to be detected than if it were being cycled on and off). So, instead of 800 Watts (2 phases of 400 Watts each) for 33% of the time (average Power: 266.6 Watts), the real electrical input would be 1200 Watts (2 + 1 hidden phase) for 33% of the time plus 400 Watts (1 hidden phase) for 66% of the time (average Power: 666.6 Watts), for an apparent COP of 2.5 (really a COP of 1.0). That’s exactly what the report claims to have found. So, without hidden laser beams or magic coatings to mask the power coming out, and without the need for LENR, we only need a single hidden conductor, capable of carrying 400 Watts, to fake the reported results.
Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
Do you have any evidence that Rossi said it had not been delivered to the secret customer from *before* this issue blew up? The only actual statement about the location of the BBB that I know of is from October 30, when Rossi answered both of these questions 1. Is the 1MW container gone? 2. Have you started building another 1MW in another container? with Yes (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=27#comment-106637). It's hard to interpret Is the container gone? as It's still here, even with the language barrier. As for Focardi and Levi, I notice that they never corrected any of the various lies about the University of Bologna actually performing independent testing of the E-Cat. If they didn't bother correcting that, I don't see why they would correct this. From: Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Except Rossi has said NO BBB has been delivered to the US customer, the BBB in his workshop is being repaired and will ship to the customer in 1 - 2 months. As Lewans knew the BBB had not been shipped, does this also say Focardi and Levi knew Rossi was lying about the shipment and knew Rossi was lying about claiming he was installing the BBB at the US customers site? How could they not know? They work in his lab. Sort of hard to miss the BBB elephant is still in the workshop? Shaun
RE: [Vo]:unpowered test of Ecat
Very interesting! It's obvious that the water being released at the end of the video is at a *MUCH* higher pressure than the water/steam coming out of the rubber hose. I guess that means that there are two separate containers of water. According to Mats Lewan, that high-pressure stream continued for about 3 minutes(!), even though the video ended after about 1:20. I recall reading that the pump used to pump water into the E-Cat was sensitive to back-pressure. With the kind of pressure being displayed in that video, the pump probably couldn't pump any water at all into the E-Cat, which is another indicator that there are two separate containers of water. It occurs to me that an easy experiment would be to take a pressure tank with a valve like the one at the bottom of the E-Cat, fill it half full of water, pressurize the container to various levels, then open the valve part-way (matching the video), and see how much pressure it takes to produce the same kind of stream. Once the appropriate pressure is found, it would be easy to determine the maximum temperature for liquid water at that pressure, and from that, the amount of heat energy actually being stored in the water. Eff Wivakeef Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:46:45 -0800 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhQIufkdL4feature=related Fast forward to 6:40 Huge blast of steam and hot water. What is going on here?
Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
So... Rossi had the old container in his warehouse on 10/28, for the dog pony show. Meanwhile, he had a second box hidden somewhere else (or he build a second one between 10/28 and 10/30, when he claimed it was gone). The secret customer tested the old box, but took delivery of the new box. But Rossi admitted recently that he's working on the old box to make it ready for the secret customer, who you claim has a different, previously unknown box. Sure! That makes perfect sense. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Rossi said that there were 2 containers. Since the definite article the did not specify each one, he said yes! Meaning, the one which was not shown in the videos was gone. 2012/1/22 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Do you have any evidence that Rossi said it had not been delivered to the secret customer from *before* this issue blew up? The only actual statement about the location of the BBB that I know of is from October 30, when Rossi answered both of these questions 1. Is the 1MW container gone? 2. Have you started building another 1MW in another container? with Yes (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=27#comment-106637). It's hard to interpret Is the container gone? as It's still here, even with the language barrier. As for Focardi and Levi, I notice that they never corrected any of the various lies about the University of Bologna actually performing independent testing of the E-Cat. If they didn't bother correcting that, I don't see why they would correct this. From: Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Except Rossi has said NO BBB has been delivered to the US customer, the BBB in his workshop is being repaired and will ship to the customer in 1 - 2 months. As Lewans knew the BBB had not been shipped, does this also say Focardi and Levi knew Rossi was lying about the shipment and knew Rossi was lying about claiming he was installing the BBB at the US customers site? How could they not know? They work in his lab. Sort of hard to miss the BBB elephant is still in the workshop? Shaun -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
Not to mention that on 10/30 Rossi answered Yes to the question Have you started building another 1MW in another container? He said nothing about having finished a second box, nor of having shipped it. It's clear from his answers that the first box is gone (lie) and that he is working on a second box (lie, unless he's building the second box at a different location). From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. So... Rossi had the old container in his warehouse on 10/28, for the dog pony show. Meanwhile, he had a second box hidden somewhere else (or he build a second one between 10/28 and 10/30, when he claimed it was gone). The secret customer tested the old box, but took delivery of the new box. But Rossi admitted recently that he's working on the old box to make it ready for the secret customer, who you claim has a different, previously unknown box. Sure! That makes perfect sense. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Rossi said that there were 2 containers. Since the definite article the did not specify each one, he said yes! Meaning, the one which was not shown in the videos was gone.
Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
If you're being sarcastic, I congratulate you on your subtlety. If you're being serious, I would ask you to provide any evidence at all to support your statement. It directly contradicts everything that Rossi has said. On October 30 (just two days after the dog pony show) that *the* box was gone, and that he had a new box he was constructing. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. That's his sandbox! While the customer gets used to the new broken one, he works in parallel in the one in his office. When it's fixed, he is going to put the new control system in the old one! 2012/1/22 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com So... Rossi had the old container in his warehouse on 10/28, for the dog pony show. Meanwhile, he had a second box hidden somewhere else (or he build a second one between 10/28 and 10/30, when he claimed it was gone). The secret customer tested the old box, but took delivery of the new box. But Rossi admitted recently that he's working on the old box to make it ready for the secret customer, who you claim has a different, previously unknown box. Sure! That makes perfect sense. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Rossi said that there were 2 containers. Since the definite article the did not specify each one, he said yes! Meaning, the one which was not shown in the videos was gone. 2012/1/22 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Do you have any evidence that Rossi said it had not been delivered to the secret customer from *before* this issue blew up? The only actual statement about the location of the BBB that I know of is from October 30, when Rossi answered both of these questions 1. Is the 1MW container gone? 2. Have you started building another 1MW in another container? with Yes (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=27#comment-106637). It's hard to interpret Is the container gone? as It's still here, even with the language barrier. As for Focardi and Levi, I notice that they never corrected any of the various lies about the University of Bologna actually performing independent testing of the E-Cat. If they didn't bother correcting that, I don't see why they would correct this. From: Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Except Rossi has said NO BBB has been delivered to the US customer, the BBB in his workshop is being repaired and will ship to the customer in 1 - 2 months. As Lewans knew the BBB had not been shipped, does this also say Focardi and Levi knew Rossi was lying about the shipment and knew Rossi was lying about claiming he was installing the BBB at the US customers site? How could they not know? They work in his lab. Sort of hard to miss the BBB elephant is still in the workshop? Shaun -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
I believe that is a brand new theory! Congratulations. So... The secret company set up a big, secret acceptance test, which, although secret, had lots of outsiders, including reporters, to report on the secret acceptance test. There was only one BBB at the location, and that's the BBB the secret customer secretly tested, while all the reporters and everyone watched. Then, the secret customer buys a different, secret BBB that Rossi had stashed away somewhere else. I guess that one is a loaner, until Rossi fixes the one they actually tested. Good thing the different, secret BBB apparently works better than the one they tested, which still isn't ready for use after thee months! This theory really brings into question why they bothered having the secret acceptance test (with all the reporters and outsiders watching) when that wasn't even the box they were buying. Either the secret customer hauled off an untested BBB, or the October 28th test was nothing more than a publicity stunt by Rossi. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Sure! You are right. He said he was present in the installation of other box in the customer's site. 2012/1/22 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Not to mention that on 10/30 Rossi answered Yes to the question Have you started building another 1MW in another container? He said nothing about having finished a second box, nor of having shipped it. It's clear from his answers that the first box is gone (lie) and that he is working on a second box (lie, unless he's building the second box at a different location). From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. So... Rossi had the old container in his warehouse on 10/28, for the dog pony show. Meanwhile, he had a second box hidden somewhere else (or he build a second one between 10/28 and 10/30, when he claimed it was gone). The secret customer tested the old box, but took delivery of the new box. But Rossi admitted recently that he's working on the old box to make it ready for the secret customer, who you claim has a different, previously unknown box. Sure! That makes perfect sense. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Rossi said that there were 2 containers. Since the definite article the did not specify each one, he said yes! Meaning, the one which was not shown in the videos was gone. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:unpowered test of Ecat
Yes, I remember reading Horace Hefner's analysis. As I recall, he (as well as some others) have repeatedly questioned the very stability you mention. It seems unlikely that the core can know how much energy to produce to keep the device exactly at the right temperature to just barely keep the water at the boiling point. And, given the doubts about the accuracy of the placement and use of the temperature sensors, any conclusions based on temperature reading is suspect. Mats Lewan stated in November that Rossi has has supplied all temperature instruments (http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_emails.php), so that's an open issue. It would be interesting to actually know what the pressure of the water jetting out of the E-Cat at the end of that video really was. I proposed a simple way of determining that, that's all. From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:24 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:unpowered test of Ecat Horace Hefner did some excellent analysis on this subject, presuming that there is a check valve and/or flow restrictor at the output. From the stability of the E-Cat temp, you can tell that it is at boiling temperature, with a mix of water and vapor. Simple steam charts will show you that the internal pressure of the E-Cat rises as high as 3 bar (134C=3 bar). http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-point-water-d_926.html You are 100% correct that this back pressure will decrease the water added by the pump. This is ask well trodden ground, so I'd recommend searching the archives. Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 07:02:28 -0800 From: john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:unpowered test of Ecat To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Very interesting! It's obvious that the water being released at the end of the video is at a *MUCH* higher pressure than the water/steam coming out of the rubber hose. I guess that means that there are two separate containers of water. According to Mats Lewan, that high-pressure stream continued for about 3 minutes(!), even though the video ended after about 1:20. I recall reading that the pump used to pump water into the E-Cat was sensitive to back-pressure. With the kind of pressure being displayed in that video, the pump probably couldn't pump any water at all into the E-Cat, which is another indicator that there are two separate containers of water. It occurs to me that an easy experiment would be to take a pressure tank with a valve like the one at the bottom of the E-Cat, fill it half full of water, pressurize the container to various levels, then open the valve part-way (matching the video), and see how much pressure it takes to produce the same kind of stream. Once the appropriate pressure is found, it would be easy to determine the maximum temperature for liquid water at that pressure, and from that, the amount of heat energy actually being stored in the water. Eff Wivakeef Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:46:45 -0800 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhQIufkdL4feature=related Fast forward to 6:40 Huge blast of steam and hot water. What is going on here?
Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
OK. Have a nice day. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Rossi installed the other box at the customer's site, he even supervise it. Probably he also tested the other box there. 2012/1/22 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com I believe that is a brand new theory! Congratulations. So... The secret company set up a big, secret acceptance test, which, although secret, had lots of outsiders, including reporters, to report on the secret acceptance test. There was only one BBB at the location, and that's the BBB the secret customer secretly tested, while all the reporters and everyone watched. Then, the secret customer buys a different, secret BBB that Rossi had stashed away somewhere else. I guess that one is a loaner, until Rossi fixes the one they actually tested. Good thing the different, secret BBB apparently works better than the one they tested, which still isn't ready for use after thee months! This theory really brings into question why they bothered having the secret acceptance test (with all the reporters and outsiders watching) when that wasn't even the box they were buying. Either the secret customer hauled off an untested BBB, or the October 28th test was nothing more than a publicity stunt by Rossi. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Sure! You are right. He said he was present in the installation of other box in the customer's site. 2012/1/22 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Not to mention that on 10/30 Rossi answered Yes to the question Have you started building another 1MW in another container? He said nothing about having finished a second box, nor of having shipped it. It's clear from his answers that the first box is gone (lie) and that he is working on a second box (lie, unless he's building the second box at a different location). From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. So... Rossi had the old container in his warehouse on 10/28, for the dog pony show. Meanwhile, he had a second box hidden somewhere else (or he build a second one between 10/28 and 10/30, when he claimed it was gone). The secret customer tested the old box, but took delivery of the new box. But Rossi admitted recently that he's working on the old box to make it ready for the secret customer, who you claim has a different, previously unknown box. Sure! That makes perfect sense. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. Rossi said that there were 2 containers. Since the definite article the did not specify each one, he said yes! Meaning, the one which was not shown in the videos was gone. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
Perhaps. I don't see what this theory offers that makes it more likely than Rossi is a con man. Since you mention his TE... In the Army report, it says that Rossi returned to Italy to continue working on it. What that report doesn't say is that Rossi had every intention of returning to the U.S. after a vacation in Italy (he had a return ticket already purchased), but that he was arrested for bankruptcy fraud. He was then convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison. So, that's why he didn't return to finish his work on the TE. June 1, 2000: Rossi arrested as a fugitive. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=tl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Farchiviostorico.corriere.it%2F2000%2Fgiugno%2F01%2Fcella_mago_del_petrolio__co_2_000601164.shtml October 20, 2000: Rossi convicted to 8 years in prison. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=tl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Farchiviostorico.corriere.it%2F2000%2Fottobre%2F20%2FCondannato_otto_anni_mago_del_co_2_0010202627.shtml This was the last of many convictions reported in the local newspapers, and I was unable to find any signs that he was acquitted of this. (I did find newspaper reports that he was acquitted of the toxic waste dump charges, but not of the many financial fraud convictions throughout the 1990s). It would be interesting to find the first reference to Rossi from the 2000s. That would set an upper limit on how long he actually spent in prison. I know we're supposed to ignore Rossi's criminal background, but in this case it helps explain why Rossi wasn't around to continue his TE work. From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. New theory, compatible with a grey world (neither white nor black) : Rossi never had a client. he is passionate, desperate to obtain support and fame. he does not do that for cash, burning much, but for fame. He is developing his e-cat, but he have stability and industrialization problems (like with TE elements). He know it can work because for some time he get good results, but not long because of sloppy driving. for some demo he is simply sloppy and exagerating, for some the e-cat is broken or weaker than expected and he fraud a little or much, but he feel honest because it can work... it is white lies for him. he is lying also because defkalion and others frighten him. after the success/failure demo of 1/2MW he decide to take the bull by the horn, maybe because of advices (the ex-military? or is it an invention). he call NI, to make it better he have no client, and the only one who knows that it works are colleagues, Defkalion and NI... they don't denounce him, because they know it will work more or less, it is not a scam, it is just business lie, and it is not their business, nobody get hurts. defkalion have seen that it was a good idea but managed badly. they decide to rebuild the same kind of device, based on scientific papers they have gathered, and hints by what they have seen... like any serious business they say no comment, wait for press announce. they have no visible ego, just investors, deadlines, workers, business plan, regulators to please, patent to write, clients to calm. buzz is not so important and they do the minimum not to frighten the future clients and the community. NI because they make a good job, give simple advice, call experts friends, have seen it working and the buzz get into the company bottom-up. the 13 1MW are also lies... just to pretend success. he is simply working on stabilizing the big-cat, and dreaming (like me) of how to design the e-kitten... meanwhile Defkalion is tuning his greek-cat and he is afraid of being put out of the race. this behavior is coherent with the thermoelectric story, as told by his opponents... optimistic, betting all on a small lab success, lying, making failures disappear by frauds, trying to make it desperately works despite problems... also coherent with his petroldragon story... optimistic, forgetting problems, trying to escape the problems and the banckruptcy by small frauds... clearly he is not scamming to make cash, he is too famous, too old, and too married to do a scam and flee in Madagascar. however he is too old to wait for another chance to be the hero of the planet... 2 failures in 40 years, the 3rd is his last chance. A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse 2012/1/22 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com ... Rossi installed the other box at the customer's site, he even supervise it. Probably he also tested the other box there.
Re: [Vo]:Greg Watson is VERY rude!
If Rossi's relationship with Sterling D. Allan didn't make this point, I don't know what could! For what it's worth, here's a link to an article by Allan, touting the wonderful Tilley perpetual motion electric car! http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Tilley/tilley_article.pdf From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greg Watson is VERY rude! Well, while it may be a bit much, I think exposure of Greg Watson/Aussie Guy is more than warranted by the extravagant and now clearly likely to be imaginary claims he made on this forum. If this is the sort of person Rossi entrusts with his time, talks, promises of custom work and detailed specifications, we should know about it.
Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage.
I was going to suggest that you were mistaken, since the DOD report states that a small-scale model was tested for 7 days at the University of New Hampshire. However, in re-reading it, I see that it was Rossi who apparently conducted the test. Since he lied about conducting E-Cat tests at the University of Bologna, I guess it's just a reasonable to assume that he lied about conducting TE tests at the University of New Hampshire! From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 1MW container is not from old footage. On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 9:35 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: Perhaps. I don't see what this theory offers that makes it more likely than Rossi is a con man. It offers that there is no evidence Rossi ever showed a working device. No evidence of proper tests anywhere-- EVER. Yet he told DOD they had been tested by the University of New Hampshire. That's how he got the contract. That makes him a lying con man if no such tests occurred. I wonder if his original proposal still exists anywhere we could see it?
Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Paradox
I'll take one of each, please! From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Rossi Paradox what about fame and sex.
Re: [Vo]:Rumors, lies and big lies
Wow! What blind faith. It really doesn't occur to you that the reason for all the fraud by Rossi (and pals) is because he don't have anything real. I'll make a counter prediction: Rossi will *NEVER* allow a truly independent test of his gadget by a reputable organization. He will *NEVER* be able to produce a credible customer who will confirm that they have a working gadget (although he may try to pass of a shill company, freshly created, and probably sharing the same rental office that his company and Ampenergo are sharing). The nice thing from your point of view is that if I'm wrong, we'll all know it soon (within months). If you're wrong, it could drag out for years, as most of the other free energy scams have don. Have a nice day. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:58 PM Subject: [Vo]:Rumors, lies and big lies My second prediction is that he will pass the real test, almost with flying colors but only for 8-12 hours, and then the E-Cat will go into quiescence mode, as always happens. But the scientists observing this will be absolutely blown away by hours of infinite COP. This should hopefully send the me-too skeptics who have come out of the woodwork this week, scurrying back to find another mouse hole (namely Milstone and company). Hopefully Keef will duck-out as well, since the only thing he seems to have to offer now is Greg's travel plans and penchant for First Class. Maybe that is too much to ask for. Is fate ever that benevolent? Jones
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
At the risk of confusing the issue, is it possible that Rossi is trying to *reduce* the apparent temperature of the system? After seeing the video of the September test, and reading Eff Wiavkeef's comments here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg61747.html it seems obvious that the steam coming from the rubber hose is at a much lower pressure than the water/stem being released from the E-Cat at the end of the video. Therefore, there would have to be two different reservoirs of water, one in a sealed container at high pressure, and a separate one, at normal (1 bar) pressure. They would be physically isolated, but thermally connected (through some sort of heat exchanger). The high-pressure side could be heated to much more than 100 C (at 5 bar, 152 C., at 10 bar, 181 C.). The pump would push small amounts of water through the heat exchanger, which would draw heat from the high-pressure reservoir, converting it into steam. This would easily explain where the extra heat came from. It would also explain the long, forceful jet of water/steam coming out of the E-Cat then the high-pressure side was opened at the end of the video. Rossi would have to hide the fact that the system is actually holding a temperature much higher than the 100 C. he claims. Just throwing it out there. From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog On 12-01-22 04:24 AM, Shaun Taylor wrote: On 22/01/2012 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the Experts that attended the demo. Some BIG names there. I see goop (probably silicon grease) on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it tells us. The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. OK, seems like a reasonable conclusion. But there's something about it which bothers me. The brass fitting in question is actually farther from the manifold body than the stainless nut which Horace (and others) had been assuming was the location of the thermocouple. What's more, the fitting in question is sufficiently far from the manifold body that it's not at all clear to me, at least, how much heat would actually have wicked to the thermocouple from the steam inlet. But be that as it may, given that this evidence seems to place the thermocouple farther from the heat source than had been previously assumed, I don't see how it makes things any worse for that test than they already were. So, what did I miss? (And by the way, Horace wasn't shouted down. Say, rather, he was shouted AT and I'll go along with it, but some folks agreed, some disagreed, and some just listened, as usual.)
Re: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group
You mean the Steorn that hand-picked a jury of scientists to test their technology, which then unanimously determined that Steorn failed to show any signs of excess energy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn#Jury_process From: *** Craig Brown *** cr...@overunity.co To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Opponents should please go away and form your own group Jed, what you have described here is EXACTLY what happened to the Steorn Forum. MaryYugo and all the moletrap clowns took over the forum and it became so abusive that the forum was closed. They are a cancer and a barrier to progress because of their own egos. These people include Mary Yugo, Axil Axil, John Milstone, Eff Wivakeef and others. You know who you are. If you will not stop this childish nonsense, I ask you to shut up and go away. I ask Bill Beaty to ban you. I have been adding you to my personal kill file, but there seems to be so many of you lately, and you are so noisy, you are interfering with scientific discourse, and perverting the spirit of this forum. The Internet is unbounded. You can form your own discussion group. You can subscribe to this group while you post your attacks and ad hominem elsewhere. Or take it to VortexB-L. Of course we welcome your contributions to the technical discussion here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
There are serious questions about the setup of the temperature measurements on the various E-Cat tests. Just because Rossi's thermocouple said the water was at 100 C (or whatever it read) doesn't mean that was the actual temperature. According to Mats Lewan, Rossi provided and set up all the temperature instruments in all of the public tests (http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_emails.php). If you have any independent information that the water in the E-Cat (in particular for the September test I referenced) really was no hotter than approximately 100 C. I would love to see it. If you are relying on a thermocouple that Rossi provided and installed, I'm not inclined to accept the results from it. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: It would also explain the long, forceful jet of water/steam coming out of the E-Cat then the high-pressure side was opened at the end of the video. Rossi would have to hide the fact that the system is actually holding a temperature much higher than the 100 C. he claims. Rossi and others measured the temperature and mass of the water dumped out of the reactor at the end, and reported it. So he is not hiding anything. Even with this crude calorimetry it is clear that total energy from input joule heating is far less than the output heat. This is a little like saying that Rossi is hiding the fact that the reactor is still there . . . by standing in front of the reactor and giving an interview on TV. That is not how most people hide an object. The reactor is big. You can't help noticing it. Not like the purloined letter. The water is hot because of cold fusion. In the heat after death test, the data shows it would have cooled long before 4 hours elapsed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it so. If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. It could even be boiling the small trickle of water being fed in by the pump during that time. Then when Rossi released the pressure by opening the valve at the end of the test, as you said, the water coming out would immediately cool to 100 C. The most obvious contradiction shown in the video is that modest stream of steam coming out of the hose at the top of the E-Cat, versus the robust stream of water and steam coming out of the valve at the bottom. It's obvious that they are not part of the same physical reservoir. If they were, the steam coming out of the top would be whipping the hose around like crazy. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog It was above 100 deg C but that does not prove the heat came from joule heating. It came from cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Who supplied and positioned the thermocouple. If it was Rossi (as Mats Lewan claims was true for every test), then I don't believe it. Rossi has way too much to gain, and way too much history of lying and cheating for me to place any faith in anything he supplied to test his gadget. You have repeatedly used Lewan's statement that it *was* very hot to justify your claims of nuclear reactions. As long as the temperature was measured by someone credible (i.e. NOT Rossi) and with trustworthy equipment (i.e. NOT supplied by Rossi) then I would accept that. But as long as Rossi gets to run tests, they are worthless. If he ever allows his device to be tested as a black box by someone credible, such as the University of Bologna, I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion of the E-Cat. But I'm pretty sure that Rossi won't ever do that. And all of your anonymous experts and secret tests mean nothing. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
That may be. I reviewed the picture with the cover off, and the cover doesn't appear as substantial as I remembered. But there sure are a lot of bolts to hold it down. Far more than would be needed if it were only pressurized to slightly more than normal (as Rossi claims. And, I suspect any device we might examine that *does* handle 10 bars has a considerable safety margin built in. I don't know that Rossi would worry about running his device without the typical safety margins, especially if it covered up some trick he was relying on to make his gadget appear to work. From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog I think that the device would explode long before it reached 10 bars. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
For what it's worth, here are the relevant links I have on Rossi's claims of having been working with the University of Bologna... January 21, 2011, Rossi says, We made an important test with the University of Bologna, with whom we are going to make a 1 year research program also. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=5#comment-20077) March 3, 2011, Rossi says, We are now making a RD work with the University of Bologna. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=10#comment-26136) June 18, 2011, Rossi says, In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47001) November 5, 2011, the University of Bologna releases a press release that specifically denies any involvement with any test conducted by Rossi. (http://www.magazine.unibo.it/Magazine/Notizie/2011/11/05/Lecat_lUnivesita_di_Bologna_non_e_coinvolta.htm) December 1, 2011, Dario Braga, the director of scientific research at the University of Bologna, states that the deadline for the contract with Rossi is mid-January and that an extension was unlikely. (http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/01/university-of-bologna-clarifies-relationship-with-rossi/) (P.S. I hope I have the return address issue sorted out!)
[Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:34:07, thorium breeder said: Can rossi achieve do it yourself isotopic separation? That ties in to the missing detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander promised before Christmas. I've been trying to find prices for specific Nickel isotopes, and no one seems to be publishing their prices online. Does anyone here know (or can find out) how much a gram of enriched 61Ni (for example) costs? Rossi claims to be enriching his Nickel fuel for no more than pennies a gram (otherwise, he couldn't be selling the 100g per 10KW E-Cat for $10). Rossi claims that the enrichment of Nickel is not part of the operation of the E-Cat. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=23#comment-101088) Rossi also claims that the ash will have returned to the natural isotopic ratios, so maybe testing the ash is a waste of time (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473cpage=1#comment-32104) Hopefully, Kullander has been testing the pre-processed fuel as well as the resulting ash. Certainly, one or the other of those will show compelling evidence of some LENR process going on (or not). If, has been rumored, 30% of the fuel transmutes into either Copper or Iron, it would be worth knowing whether the resulting particles contained mixtures of the various elements (which would be consistent with real transmutation) or whether each particle consisted of only one element (which would not).
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
I suppose my coffee maker could be producing dry steam. But it's producing very small quantities of it, and that small amount of steam pushes the vast majority of the liquid water up and over the reservoir and into the coffee grounds. Or am I missing something? From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Uh Shaun, wet steam is physical impossibility. All water boilers on Earth produce 99-95 dry steam, including Krivit's water boiler. You need to go high pressures and high steam velocities in order to produce stable wet steam. So please, at least you should get the basic physics right. —Jouni On Jan 21, 2012 1:25 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/01/2012 9:28 PM, John Milstone wrote: For what it's worth, here are the relevant links I have on Rossi's claims of having been working with the University of Bologna... June 18, 2011, Rossi says, In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47001) Dry steam with really high performance Rossi said Well when Krivit made his visit and video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E on 14 June 2011, the steam was very, very, VERY wet and not coming out in the volume or speed one would expect from turning 7 kg of water into steam every hour. 11:30 in the video. Something must have really, really, REALLY changed in 4 days. Maybe Rossi thinks Prof Levi and Prof Focardi working privately in his laboratory is the same thing as the University of Bologna doing the work. That was until the University made it VERY clear they had never officially done any work for Rossi and this would not happen until he paid them what he had agreed to pay them. As we know, that did not happen. So Rossi is caught out in yet another lie. Yea I know, just another translation error. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
If you trust Rossi, then you might as well accept the numbers presented by the unknown consultant of the secret company. If you don't trust Rossi, then there is absolutely nothing from the October 28th test to indicate that the MegaWatt E-Cat even got slightly warm (AFAIK), with or without the generator running. Did any of the guests notice any radiant heat from either the shipping container or the big heat exchanger? Did anyone notice atmospheric heat distortion immediately above the heat exchanger? I don't recall reading any such things (but I could have missed something). It's a shame that no one thought to bring an infrared heat sensor (the type used to detect heat escaping from doors and windows in a home). That might have provided very useful data on just how hot the various parts of the device actually got, even though Rossi prevented any direct measurements. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog There is still the nagging question of “was the power turned off or not?” due to the genset still running - but any practical person would have to conclude there is a good case for a gigantic thermal anomaly for many hours. Yet there is no real proof and any “customer” who thinks there was satisfactory proof for a large investment - is not getting good technical assistance.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
I understood that. So then, to make his numbers work, he must bump up those specific isotopes (3.6% and 0.9%) so that they make up around 35% (to explain the 30% Copper and/or Iron he claims to be in the ash, with the natural ratios of Nickel remaining). IIRC, Rossi claims a total of 100g per module, which would mean he would have to create about 35g of those specific isotopes for each $10 charge (what he claims to be able to sell a 6-month supply of fuel for). He also claims that the cost of doing this enrichment is about 10% of the cost of the raw Nickel. This works out to producing specific isotopes of 62Ni and/or 64Ni for about $0.03/gram. According to this page (the first one I found), Nickel nanopowder is about $0.02 - $0.04 per gram: http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/427027861/nickel_powder.html?s=p I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to find the going rate for specific isotopes of Nickel. I'll bet it costs A LOT more than $0.03/gram. I have to believe that someone on the Vortex can get a ballpark figure for purified 62Ni and 64Ni. Meanwhile, the technology to produce kilogram quantities of specific enriched isotopes for pennies a gram is, I suspect, worth far more than the market for space heaters. Funny that Rossi would disregard that aspect of his operation. There's also the fact that several unfriendly countries are devoting significant portions of their national economy on being able to do this exact process with Uranium. If there is any chance that the process can be adapted for something other than Nickel, then it would have, um, explosive consequences should it fall into unfriendly hands. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here He meant that only 62 and 64 transmutes. So, he maximizes their quantity to increase the energy density.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Have any of these people reported any signs of the E-Cat actually working during the October 28th test? Or did they simply accept the write-up produced by Rossi and the unknown consultant for the secret company. I find it interesting that with all the intense interest in this story, it appears that no one has found a any signs of Domenico Fioravanti existing prior to his appearance at Rossi's October 28th show. usually a distinguished engineer and military man would leave some trace of his existence behind: professional organizations, newspaper clippings of promotions, something. AFAIK, no one has found one shred of evidence that this man exists. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Good point Robert, and let me leave this for Milstone. You might fool some of these guys on occasion, but not all of them for many hours as to the main contention - that there is/was a bona fide thermal anomaly (when the P-in became negligible). They were invited for a number of reasons (non-threatening, as competitors) but one would be hard pressed to find a dozen PhDs anywhere who would sacrifice their reputation for a nut-case like Rossi. Here is a list of Scientists who attended the October test: Prof. Petterson, Roland - Uppsala University Prof. Campari, Enrico (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Bonetti, Ennio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Levi, Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Clauzon, Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris) Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna) Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy) Prof. Focardi, Sergio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Stremmenos, Christos (Univ. Atene) Prof. Jobson, Edward (Univ. Goteborg) Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio) Dr Enrico, Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA) This list does not include technicians and other faculty.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Just because GM is selling a real electric car doesn't mean that Tilley was legitimate. (http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Tilley/) Just because there are real companies selling real solar power systems doesn't mean that Greg Watson (apparently AKA Aussie Guy E-Cat) and his Sun Cube was legit. (http://www.citronresearch.com/index.php/2008/03/18/) Even if legitimate researchers are seeing interesting results, that doesn't necessarily mean that Rossi is legit. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Rossi is a dodgy character, but that does not mean that it isn't working. There are a lot of others out there with Impeccable professional scientific reputations who are getting high-level outputs from similar Ni-H systems. Eg Brillioun Energy reported 2x gain in February last year at relatively low temperatures of just 120°C http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Brillouin_Second_Round_Data.pdf. There are also Miley, Arata, Ahern, Focardi, Piantelli, Celani that I can think of off the top of my head who have announced pretty sizeable power outputs recently, and now no doubt hundreds of unknown others who are working like crazy to improve on their performance and then apply for Patents.
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
I wasn't aware that either one actually reported any first-hand observations (but maybe I missed it). In particular, I thought that the AP reporter didn't report anything, which caused considerable consternation among those who hoped that this test, and reporting by the AP would finally convince the nay-sayers. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Just Levi and the AP reporter, which were the only ones that were present in the day but not together with Danielle Passerini, outside the warehouse. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Have any of these people reported any signs of the E-Cat actually working during the October 28th test? Or did they simply accept the write-up produced by Rossi and the unknown consultant for the secret company. I find it interesting that with all the intense interest in this story, it appears that no one has found a any signs of Domenico Fioravanti existing prior to his appearance at Rossi's October 28th show. usually a distinguished engineer and military man would leave some trace of his existence behind: professional organizations, newspaper clippings of promotions, something. AFAIK, no one has found one shred of evidence that this man exists. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Good point Robert, and let me leave this for Milstone. You might fool some of these guys on occasion, but not all of them for many hours as to the main contention - that there is/was a bona fide thermal anomaly (when the P-in became negligible). They were invited for a number of reasons (non-threatening, as competitors) but one would be hard pressed to find a dozen PhDs anywhere who would sacrifice their reputation for a nut-case like Rossi. Here is a list of Scientists who attended the October test: Prof. Petterson, Roland - Uppsala University Prof. Campari, Enrico (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Bonetti, Ennio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Levi, Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Clauzon, Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris) Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna) Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy) Prof. Focardi, Sergio (Univ. Bologna) Prof. Stremmenos, Christos (Univ. Atene) Prof. Jobson, Edward (Univ. Goteborg) Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio) Dr Enrico, Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA) This list does not include technicians and other faculty. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
OK, does anyone have a ballpark figure for isotopically enriched Boron? I agree that it seems reasonable that the difficulty of separating the isotopes of Boron and Nickel would be comparable (but I don't know). The only problem using Boron as an analogy is that the raw material is almost 150 times as expensive as Nickel. That might make any direct comparison doubtful. I've found several companies selling isotopically enriched Nickel, but none of them provide a price online. And, I'm very reluctant to start calling/writing these companies looking for such information, since I don't want to get on any more Government lists than I'm already on. As Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory said (paraphrasing), It seems that if you hack in to a National Defense super-computer, and try to buy Uranium-235 on Craigslist, the NSA calls your Mother! From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here In the specific case of Rossi, he wants to exclude nickel below 62, but purity is not a necessity, but an optimazation. So, if he roughly excludes most of what is bellow 62, that is good enough. Given that most of Ni is 58 and 60, he can determine a threshold of, say, Z=62, more or less, and roughly separates around this value. It doesn't need to bu pure and the weight difference is quite big, about the same of what is needed to separte boron 10 from 11, even so, not so precise. I think you should look for the costs of enrich boron estimate from there.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Thanks for reposting that information. So, if the fuel or ash from an E-Cat contained excess 64-Ni, that would be compelling evidence that he really does have a new and revolutionary means of enriching Nickel isotopes, since it seems unlikely that he would have the resources to spike his samples with $30,000/g material. That make me even more eager to see the detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander said would be available before Christmas. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:44 PM Subject: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment As mentioned in prior posting - Ni-64 costs about $3 per gram from a medical supplier. We checked the ones near Rossi's former lab in NH and no one remembers him or the name Leonardo (LTI, or EON). The reason for checking was to see if Rossi started out this way first before finding a less expensive solution. As for the present - Rossi claims to enrich in Ni-64 himself - not by buying an enriched isotope. This is unlikely but possible. The first relevant fact is that over two-thirds of natural nickel is the 58Ni, which has very high nuclear stability - but there is also a ~1% isotope 64Ni which is 6 a.m.u. or ~11% heavier and has different NMR properties. Since nickel can be obtained in liquid form as feedstock and then resold with the heavier isotopes removed, and since the feedstock is possibly more valuable with heavier isotopes removed, it is possible to do it yourself with an ultra-centrifuge, and possibly in combination with NMR techniques for the net differential manufacturing cost. This is especially true if you simply want enrichment in 62 and 64 and can work with a nickel supplier and starting with electroless nickel can also make nanostructuring much simpler, so it could be a double benefit. I do not think Rossi is that sophisticated, but don't forget that his backers for 10 years at least were high up in DoE. That could also be the source of enriched isotope. If the Swedes ever do release the mass-spec analysis- maybe we will know if this Ni-64 business is one more Rossi lie, or not. It probably is. Jones
Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here
Do either of these methods of transmutation work with the various isotopes of Nickel? Are either of them able to produce the kilogram quantities, for pennies a gram, that Rossi would require? From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:I`ll just leave this here Anyone can produce transmutation in their own home by electric arching pure carbon electrodes and pure water; and transmutation occurs in certain living systems.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
The trouble is, if only 64Ni is converted into Copper (and/or Iron?), and the ash is 30% Copper, then wouldn't there have to be 30% 64Ni in the fuel? Otherwise, where is the Copper coming from? And if Rossi can convert less than 1% 64Ni into at least 30%, and 64Ni is going for $30,000/g, I think he found a much better money maker than selling E-Cats. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment You are giving the number for a high purity isotope, like 99.99%. In other thread, I was talking about an extremely dirty mixture of Ni62+Ni64 and a bunch of other isotopes, no problem if it is 50% of other stuff.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Right. The Copper (of any isotope) is supposedly transmuted from one either 62Ni or 64Ni. Natural Nickel is about 3.6% 62Ni and about 0.9% 64Ni. So, the active ingredients in the fuel make up less than 5% of the total. However, the ash contains (according to Rossi) up to 30% Copper. Where does all that Copper come from, unless Rossi is converting about 25% of the existing 58Ni into one or more of the rarer isotopes? Since one module contains (IIRC) about 100g of fuel, that means that Rossi claims to be able to convert about 25g of that into rarer isotopes for something on the order of $1 (since he said a refueling will cost about $10, and the cost of enriching the fuel adds about 10% to the cost). Reducing the cost of a gram of 64Ni from $30,000 to $0.04 is quite an achievement! From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment You mean Cu 65 and Cu63. That's the ash. 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com Thanks for reposting that information. So, if the fuel or ash from an E-Cat contained excess 64-Ni, that would be compelling evidence that he really does have a new and revolutionary means of enriching Nickel isotopes, since it seems unlikely that he would have the resources to spike his samples with $30,000/g material. That make me even more eager to see the detailed isotopic analysis that Sven Kullander said would be available before Christmas.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
True, but the $0.04/gram is, roughly, what you get when you work from Rossi's statements (i.e. 100g and $10 per load, 10% cost is enhancement of the catalyst, we need 30% of the rare isotopes in order to have enough material to make an ash with 30% Copper). The point is that it's too low a cost to allow for any significant processing, especially if Rossi is going to have 1 million E-Cats per year, needing refueling every 6 months. No matter how you look at it, if the conversion is from 62Ni and 64Ni into 63Cu and 65Cu, you need to enrich the 62Ni from ~3.5% to almost 25%, and the 64Ni from ~0.9% to 11%, just to end up with 30% Copper containing natural isotopic ratios. I certainly understand why the $30,000/g price for very pure, single isotopic material is more than what is needed by Rossi, but a few pennies per gram seems low for any processing of this sort. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment Why to 0.04$? To 100$ would be a great thing too.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Do you know of any way to enrich Nickel, or any other metal, for a few pennies per gram? Either there is some known way to do this, or Rossi has made a major breakthrough (with really, really dangerous WMD overtones), or Rossi is lying. I have yet to hear of any enrichment method that is within several orders of magnitude of what Rossi *must* have, if he's really selling 100g of fuel for $10. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment I don't really see the reason why not enriching Ni62 - Ni64 to 20% would be very expensive.That's a purity level 500-5000 lower than those that leave only one isotope pure.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Please tell me what Rossi does! Or do we all agree that there is no commonly known method to do what Rossi says he's doing? Nickel has a large number of stable isotopes, but they can't be used interchangeably to transmute into the stable isotopes (and *only* the stable isotopes) of Copper, can they? To end up with an ash containing 30% Copper in its natural isotope ratio (as has been reported), you must start out with the companion Nickel isotopes greatly enriched from their natural isotope ratios. From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment What Rossi does cannot be done with heavier radioactive elements. Their weight difference is too small. Nickel is one of the elements with the highest range of stable isotopes.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
So, you're saying that Jed Rothwell is wrong when he has stated repeatedly that he has never caught Rossi lying about his work? That's really the basis of everything Rothwell is claiming: Although Rossi lies about all sorts of other things, we can trust what he says about his science. In other words, you're saying that Rossi lies about *everything* and we should just believe him anyway. That's nothing even remotely like the scientific method. That's called blind faith. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 2:45 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment From: John Milstone * I have yet to hear of any enrichment method that is within several orders of magnitude of what Rossi *must* have, if he's really selling 100g of fuel for $10. Then why even attempt to believe it? Yes that one is absolutely false beyond any reasonable doubt - and yes Rossi often lies, and yes we are left to sort through a mountain of lies to find glimmers of truth on almost every point.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
Ew! We are all being PUNished. Anyone who understands these references needs to see the Mystery Science Theater 3000 movie, which poked fun at This Island Earth. From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You know, of course, that Giuseppe Levi starred in the movie This Island Earth. He actually built an inteROSSitor to get the part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interocitor http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047577/ T
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
The Ni claims are based on Rossi's comments in his blog. Rossi claims to be enhancing the Nickel fuel, and it's obvious from his comments that he's referring to changing the natural isotope ratios. Based on Rossi's statements, he *must* be doing this for no more than a few cents per gram. Based on the responses to my original question, no one has a clue how Rossi might be doing this, and apparently even his most feverish supporters believe it's a lie on Rossi's part. Sorry if I mis-stated your position on Rossi's lies. I had understood your position to be that Rossi only lies about things other than the technical issues related to the E-Cat. I guess even you accept that Rossi lies about *everything*. You are, of course, free to add me to your kill file. I will continue to read your comments, even though they are usually based on nothing more than argument by authority. John From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: So, you're saying that Jed Rothwell is wrong when he has stated repeatedly that he has never caught Rossi lying about his work? No, the Ni claims are not based on Rossi's own work, and they are mostly theoretical. We discussed this at length. I made it clear I do not believe those claims. I do not know what to make of them. That's really the basis of everything Rothwell is claiming: Although Rossi lies about all sorts of other things, we can trust what he says about his science. That is not even close to what I say. You do not understand what I said. You have not read the literature. You are not contributing anything. If you keep up this blather I will be pleased to add you to my kill file. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Rossi got just short of a year's worth of borrowed credibility from his lies about involvement with the University of Bologna. I documented at least three times (the earliest was last January) when Rossi claimed he was *currently* working with the U of B. I've read numerous statements by Rossi supporters that Rossi *must* be legitimate, since no con man would allow his device to be independently tested. They then used Rossi's statements, along with numerous supporting statements from Rossi's supporters, that such testing *was* occurring to justify their claim. Then, when it came time to actually allow that testing, Rossi abruptly changed his mind, pulling the rug out from under everyone who had believed and repeated his lies. Where did you get the notion that Rossi was insisting that it be kept secret?!? The contract was common knowledge. The only part that was secret until recently was the fact that Rossi refused to activate it by paying them the required funds. Rossi boasted about having the contract, and he even claimed that he had sold his house to pay for it. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common tactic of those with something to sell to play up the professional associations of others who are involved in some way, which is clearly what is being done here. If it is clearly being done, then why has Rossi stiffed the university? Why did he break contract? How will this enhance his public image? What you say makes no sense. Rossi is not making himself look good. This is yet another public relations disaster for him. If he is trying to attract investors -- as you claim -- why does he go around breaking contracts with universities and picking public arguments with people? If he has no device in the first place, why would he even make the arrangement in the first place? The only reason he wanted research at the university was so that he could benefit from their discoveries. That's why he insisted it be kept secret. Apparently he now feels he does not need them. When Rossi decides he does not need you, he cuts you loose immediately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
The most reasonable answer to why he signed the contract was to gain borrow the credibility of the University. Note that is was commonly reported that at least some of his tests were conducted *at* the U of B, which as far as I know is false. Note that Rossi waited until after the big finale of his year-long publicity stunt to dump the contract. The most reasonable answer to why he broke the contract was because he had already milked dry the bogus respectability it brought him for free, so why pay for it? There's also the possibility that it won't actually work in actual independent tests. From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog I have no explanation for why Rossi would have broken the contract. There is a lot that I don't understand about this story. It would hardly enhance his public image.
Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment
That might have some value if Lewan mentioned it *before* this issue blew up in Rossi's face. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ni-64 enrichment Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi lied about the BBB being shipped to a secret customer. He never told Lewan it shipped.
Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com
I wonder if Rossi would allow someone to come in and see/photograph the state of his warehouse today? That might clear up a lot of confusion. John
Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com
And yet, you insist that he COULDN'T have confused and outwitted the people attending his demonstrations? From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com He loves confusing and outwitting people, although it often happens that he has not outwitted them; he only imagines he has. He has been playing mind games with you. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com
Is for all we know the new standard for judging evidence? From: Energy Liberator energylibera...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com For all we know NI have a couple of fat cats sitting in their workshop in the US to play with.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi often says things he does not mean
Jed Rothwell said: It is also because he thrives on controversy. He loves confusing and outwitting people, Jed Rothwell also said: He never fools me. He does not seem to be trying to fool me. How fortunate that you appear to be the only person who isn't being bamboozled by Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi often says things he does not mean
I haven't seen or heard of any reports by credible witnesses to either of these. Are they buried somewhere in the LENR library? In the case of Ampenergo, at least, I'm not overly impressed with a company that consists of nothing but a one-page, content-free web site and an rental office that just happens to be sharing the same rental office and same phone number as Rossi's company. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi often says things he does not mean It makes no difference which is more common. We can be sure that Rossi's claims are real because they have been independently tested by Ampenergo and others, and independently replicated by Defkalion. We do not have depend on his judgement or his honesty. If we did have to depend on those things, I would not believe a word of it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's behavior is more tragic than deceptive
Maybe they just got tired of the hundreds, if not thousands of annoying emails and phone calls from Rossi's fans, demanding a detailed accounting of just how great Rossi's invention really is? It isn't at all unusual for a company to release a statement on an issue that is generating more than typical interest. NI made the most insignificant acknowledgement possible (other than Never heard of the guy!). And that was only after Rossi's fans and associates generated considerable hype about the relationship. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi's behavior is more tragic than deceptive Yes, NI has millions of customers as Mary Yogo said, but they do not write millions of letters to Forbes. They would only do this for a customer they consider important. If it was just some guy who bought Lab View they would not confirm or deny it, even if he registered his name in the customer database. The people at NI are not fools. They know that Rossi is controversial. They would not confirm the relationship without careful consideration and deep knowledge of what he is doing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi often says things he does not mean
Jed, According to the Internet Way-Back machine (archive.org), Rossi's company has been using the same address since sometime prior to May 14, 2010. I thought Ampenergo was just set up last summer? Thanks for the advise on my email replies. I'm sending them to vortex-l@eskimo.com. Is that not correct? John From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi often says things he does not mean John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: I haven't seen or heard of any reports by credible witnesses to either of these. Are they buried somewhere in the LENR library? Nope. They are unpublished. They will not give me permission to publish, unfortunately. In the case of Ampenergo, at least, I'm not overly impressed with a company that consists of nothing but a one-page, content-free web site . . . They have impressive people on tap, such as McKubre's friend. No money as far as I know, but I don't know much about them. and an rental office that just happens to be sharing the same rental office and same phone number as Rossi's company. I believe it is the other way around. He is sharing their address. They were there first. Start-up companies are often no more than a mailing address. (By the way, you should change your e-mail specs so that responses go to Vortex.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi often says things he does not mean
Testing... 1, 2, 3. Is this any better? (Sorry for the trouble!) From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi often says things he does not mean ... ... I'm sending them to vortex-l@eskimo.com. Is that not correct? Hi John, The same thing is happening to me, as with Jed. When I hit the reply button, to reply to one of your vortex-l posts, I don't get the vortex-l address. I get your personal email address. There must be a setting somewhere that needs fixing at your end. Check your reply to setting. Anybody else got any suggestions? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com
If this container looks like the same container, in the exact same spot, and it is unlikely that they would go to the trouble of repeatedly placing different containers (or the same container multiple times) in the exact spot, doesn't that mean that the original 1-MW container has never left Rossi's facility? What does that suggest about his story that the secret customer took delivery of it? John From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting new video from ecat.com It is probably the same container, in that case. I think it would be difficult to place a second one in exactly the same spot. I was watching people erect a concrete parking garage the other day. They were moving huge beams and pre-formed slabs into precisely aligned positions, with a crane. This can be done, but it is a lot of work. I assume if they brought in a second shipping container they would not go to the effort to set it down precisely where the first one was. - Jed
[Vo]:Kullander's detailed isotopic analysis of ash from Rossi's E-Cat?
Hi everyone! Last November, Sven Kullander promised a detailed isotopic analysis of the ash from Rossi's E-Cat by Christmas. (http://ecatnews.com/?p=1416) It's now well past Christmas, and I haven't seen any signs of this report. Does anyone know what happened to it? John
