Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi wrote:

The point 2 is CRITICAL when the measuremnt is done with point 1, 
because without using a demister you made a mesuremnt error that 
*over-extimate* the real energy produced.


Over-estimate by how much? 470 kW? I doubt it. The exact power level 
does not matter. An hour after you turn off input power, the pipe coming 
out out would be at room temperature. It would be obvious there is no 
heat. You do not need high precision to prove the thing is producing 
anomalous heat. The colonel's methods are standard HVAC techniques, and 
they are fine.


Anyone can always think of a more precise way, to make a measurement. 
The question is: Will the extra precision add to the confidence of the 
result? Or will it only add meaningless extra digits of precision while 
confusing the issue with extra layers of complexity? The suggestions 
made here by skeptics will have the latter effect.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Robert Leguillon]

I know that this post is going to ruffle some feathers, but:

He has indeed done stints in jail. He has repeatedly claimed incredible strides 
in developing rare technology, and has seen things go awry in delivery.

Petroldragon appeared totally revolutionary. The telling of this story varies 
greatly, and the most detailed accounts come from the accused - Rossi. It is 
not palatable to go over allegations, but it is undisputed that he ended up in 
jail, with stockpiled waste. But in his telling, it was a mafia conspiracy.

Leonardo Technologies, Inc. demonstrated a Thermo Electric device at 20% 
efficiency, when the norm was 4%. I am actually curious if this demonstration 
involved boiling water. (If anyone can find info on the University of New 
Hampshire testing, this could be incredibly telling).
According to the Army pdf below:
When it can time to deliver, his facility caught fire. Then he moved 
production, and the subcontractors failed. Upwards of 75% of his units didn't 
work at all, and the remaining gave 1 watt instead of 800-1000W. When he was 
bailed out to the point that true experts were building him new assembly 
procedures, he finally built working devices that performed right on par with 
existing technology.

 http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf

Ni-H technology may indeed be valid. Rossi may have indeed contributed greatly 
by using nano-nickel. But, when these tests leave questions, tread very, very 
lightly in proclamations of "faith".



Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>Peter Heckert wrote:
>
>> This is how he appears to you, and this is why he doesnt invite you.
>
>He wants to look like a crook? This is complicated reverse psychology. 
>It could easily backfire I suppose, and have the opposite effect. I 
>suppose he also wanted the authorities to send him to jail years ago. It 
>was part of his long-range scheme to make himself look like a criminal, 
>so that he could then use reverse psychology to make himself not look 
>like a criminal.
>
>I don't buy that.
>
>
>> He doesnt invite people that love to discuss and ask difficult questions.
>
>He does invite such people. They discuss things to a fair-thee-well. 
>They ask difficult questions. He seldom answers those questions. However 
>he does not have to. His machine answers your questions, if you 
>understand first principle physics.
>
>
>> Of course, with you or me this wouldnt work. Therefore he doesnt 
>> invite you or Brian Josephson.
>
>Actually, he did but Josephson could not attend.
>
>
>> Therefore he presents a leaking ecat to NASA researchers and sents 
>> them home.
>
>After it spectacularly failed to work and everyone got angry. You are 
>saying this is reverse psychology. He calls people in, does 
>demonstrations that fail, and he does this in order to convince people 
>that the technology actually works. Right? Kind of the way he has 
>himself sent to jail to prove he is an honest man.
>
>There has to be an easier way to establish credibility.
>
>- Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Mattia Rizzi]

Jed, i'm still waiting to know why an expert of thermodynamic, hired for
checking a 2,000,000$ trade, would:
1) Mesaure the energy by measuring the liquid water condensed and then
calculate the energy by the ASSUMPTION that the remaining water has been
converted into a dry steam, when there are more realible systems.
2) Why this expert didn't add a Demister or even a symple water trap (do
you know what is? it's a U shaped tube with an exit on the bottom) to make
*sure* that all the water condensed will exit and go inside the water tank
and measure it.
The point 2 is CRITICAL when the measuremnt is done with point 1, because
without using a demister you made a mesuremnt error that *over-extimate*
the real energy produced. And if you don't event add a simply water trap,
the method 1 is simple *non-sense* because much of the water woldn't exit
to the water tank.
I cannot believe, and you must agree, that an expert would do a so much
flawed test for a TWO MILLION OF DOLLARS trade.

2011/11/3 Peter Heckert 

> Am 03.11.2011 23:45, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
>
>  Peter Heckert wrote:
>>
>>  What do you think why did he invite an AP journalist who has no
>>> technical or scientific knowledge?
>>>
>>
>> Who told you this journalist has no technical or scientific knowledge?
>> Did you communicate with the journalist? Where did you get this information?
>>
>> Please do not make assertions about this journalist if you do not know
>> who he is or how much he knows.
>>
>>  Instinct.
> Clearvoyance.
> Test what I say and prove me false.
> Show me sciene articles that he published.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Peter Heckert]

Am 03.11.2011 23:45, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckert wrote:

What do you think why did he invite an AP journalist who has no 
technical or scientific knowledge?


Who told you this journalist has no technical or scientific knowledge? 
Did you communicate with the journalist? Where did you get this 
information?


Please do not make assertions about this journalist if you do not know 
who he is or how much he knows.



Instinct.
Clearvoyance.
Test what I say and prove me false.
Show me sciene articles that he published.

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

What do you think why did he invite an AP journalist who has no 
technical or scientific knowledge?


Who told you this journalist has no technical or scientific knowledge? 
Did you communicate with the journalist? Where did you get this information?


Please do not make assertions about this journalist if you do not know 
who he is or how much he knows.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:


This is how he appears to you, and this is why he doesnt invite you.


He wants to look like a crook? This is complicated reverse psychology. 
It could easily backfire I suppose, and have the opposite effect. I 
suppose he also wanted the authorities to send him to jail years ago. It 
was part of his long-range scheme to make himself look like a criminal, 
so that he could then use reverse psychology to make himself not look 
like a criminal.


I don't buy that.



He doesnt invite people that love to discuss and ask difficult questions.


He does invite such people. They discuss things to a fair-thee-well. 
They ask difficult questions. He seldom answers those questions. However 
he does not have to. His machine answers your questions, if you 
understand first principle physics.



Of course, with you or me this wouldnt work. Therefore he doesnt 
invite you or Brian Josephson.


Actually, he did but Josephson could not attend.


Therefore he presents a leaking ecat to NASA researchers and sents 
them home.


After it spectacularly failed to work and everyone got angry. You are 
saying this is reverse psychology. He calls people in, does 
demonstrations that fail, and he does this in order to convince people 
that the technology actually works. Right? Kind of the way he has 
himself sent to jail to prove he is an honest man.


There has to be an easier way to establish credibility.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Peter Heckert]

Am 03.11.2011 23:28, schrieb Peter Heckert:

Am 03.11.2011 23:02, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckert wrote: For example he is a good psychologist and he
knows how to fool people.

No, he is a terrible psychologist. He does not know how to fool
anyone. He inspires no confidence in anyone. he gives everyone,
including me, the impression that he is some sort of fraud.

This is how he appears to you, and this is why he doesnt invite you.
He doesnt invite people that love to discuss and ask difficult questions.


What do you think why did he invite an AP journalist who has no 
technical or scientific knowledge?
He had many others and could have selected another or better qualified 
in addition.

Those people that he invites are carefully handpicked.
He has NOT invited Brian Josephson. I know this from a very reliable 
source that cannot be in error.
But he and Passi give the impression Josephson did not come because he 
fears for his scientific reputation.

This is a pure and bad defamation.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Peter Heckert]

Am 03.11.2011 23:02, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote: For example he is a good psychologist and he 
knows how to fool people.


No, he is a terrible psychologist. He does not know how to fool 
anyone. He inspires no confidence in anyone. he gives everyone, 
including me, the impression that he is some sort of fraud.

This is how he appears to you, and this is why he doesnt invite you.
He doesnt invite people that love to discuss and ask difficult questions.

He only invites persons where he gets the impression he can build up 
rapport and apply his methods.
He uses a lot of body language to transfer assumptions over subconsious 
channels and then he confirms this subconscious belive by physical 
actions and makes people believe.
Of course, with you or me this wouldnt work. Therefore he doesnt invite 
you or Brian Josephson. He only invites people when he can be sure he 
can manipulate them or they are magicians like himself and will 
participate in this game willingly.
Therefore he presents a leaking ecat to NASA researchers and sents them 
home.
In large groups he concentrates on these peoples that can be influenced 
and uses the group effect to convince others.

It is a mass hypnosis phenomena.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert wrote:

Rossi is a magically talented engineer but because he never has proven 
his claims -and this would be easy if true- we must assume that he 
abuses his abilities to fool us.


Theory of magic:
It is possible to keep the water boiling if you realize that the 
amperemeter was not watched constantly.
This would produce waves of heat, instantly recognizable. You can see 
how quickly the temperature falls when all heat is turned off. As soon 
as people look at the ammeters it would have to be cut off. He would 
probably not catch them every time.


If he has a magical switch that switches the power on, when nobody 
watches then he can keep the water boiling.


Again, this would produce waves of heat.


If somebody watches the meter for longer time, he evacuates the output 
hose and with reduced pressure the water will keep boiling. As soon as 
the examiner gets bored and stops to watch the amp meter, Rossi 
switches the power on again.


There is no mechanism to evacuate the output hose. The data shows that 
output was continuous.




He might have a helper person.


That person cannot do things that violate physical laws.


If anything goes wrong then he lets a leak arise and stops the 
experiment prematurely.


He did not stop the two demos prematurely. He stopped when observers 
asked him to. Four hours was long enough in any case. Longer than necessary.



He is very experienced and might have a hundred tricks that I dont 
know and he always uses these tricks that are opportune.


There are not 100 tricks to do this. There is not one. Stage magicians 
cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. there is no doubt whatever 
the cell produced kilowatt levels of heat for four hours without any 
input. It is not possible there were hidden wires or fuel in the cell.


I am sorry to be harsh, but if you believe any of the above fairytale 
scenarios you are a gullible true believer.




He has needed many years of research to invent this magical apparatus.


What you are describing would only be possible with actual magic that 
violates the laws of nature. No such thing exists. Stage magic can never 
accomplish this.




For example he is a good psychologist and he knows how to fool people.


No, he is a terrible psychologist. He does not know how to fool anyone. 
He inspires no confidence in anyone. he gives everyone, including me, 
the impression that he is some sort of fraud.



This is my unprovable and irrefutable theory about magic, of course I 
cannot know if it can be applied to 


A theory that is unprovable is not falsifiable. It is not a theory. It 
has no meaning.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Peter Heckert]

Am 03.11.2011 22:08, schrieb Jed Rothwell:


He has also proved it by first principles in the Oct. 6 test. Unless 
you think a 30 L container of water can magically radiate heat for 4 
hours and yet remain hot while you run 60 L of tap water through it.


It is ridiculous that anyone would question his results after that. 
There is no chance there was a hidden battery, wires or chemical fuel.

Not ridiculous.
Rossi is a magically talented engineer but because he never has proven 
his claims -and this would be easy if true- we must assume that he 
abuses his abilities to fool us.


Theory of magic:
It is possible to keep the water boiling if you realize that the 
amperemeter was not watched constantly.
If he has a magical switch that switches the power on, when nobody 
watches then he can keep the water boiling.
If somebody watches the meter for longer time, he evacuates the output 
hose and with reduced pressure the water will keep boiling. As soon as 
the examiner gets bored and stops to watch the amp meter, Rossi switches 
the power on again.

He might have a helper person.
If anything goes wrong then he lets a leak arise and stops the 
experiment prematurely.
He is very experienced and might have a hundred tricks that I dont know 
and he always uses these tricks that are opportune.

He has needed many years of research to invent this magical apparatus.
For example he is a good psychologist and he knows how to fool people.
He knows, that human temperature sensibility is very relative and easy 
to fool. Let someone touch a cold object and then touch a 50° object and 
he will think it is 100° and pull back his fingers immediately.

He kows how to manipulate people and make them believe.

If you remember the Krivit demo where he touches the tower and then 
pulls his fingers back as if burned. He tries to suggest it is hotter 
than it is. If he is experienced, shouldnt he expect heat in advance? I 
would have touched this much more carefully if I had experience.  Same 
when he touches the output hose for the first time. Appears as if he is 
surprised by the heat. After doing this twice he uses a cloth. Isnt this 
silly?
As any good magician and artist, as soon as he notices, people are 
following and believing what he says he goes to the next level and as 
soon he has pulled the people to the level of absurdity they believe 
anything he suggests because they have learned what he says is 
surprisingly true.


This is my unprovable and irrefutable theory about magic, of course I 
cannot know if it can be applied to Rossi.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Mattia Rizzi]

Jed, you are not answering my questions.
The valve is not so much open, so the quantity of water is simply
arbitrary. You cannot say 'if there was much liquid water then it will go
out from the pipe'.
What is interesting is:
1) Why the colonel as not installed a demister?
2) Why the colonel even a water trap??
They simply made a hole inside the tube. Withouyt a water trap (or
something similiar like a demister) you cannot be sure that the water is
going out from the drain tube.
I think that a simply water trap, with only a condensed water of
1liter/hour wouldn't be a problem. Yep, it's a problem when there are
hundred of liquid water mixed with vapour. Mmmh.


2011/11/3 Jed Rothwell 

> Mattia Rizzi wrote:
>
>  Jed Rothwell:> it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with
>> steam, that bucket would have overflowed in no time.
>>
>> Mattia Rizzi: Incorrect since the valve is pratically closed. SImply you
>> don't know.
>>
>
> Lewan felt the lower pipe and the valve attached to it and reported it was
> hot.
>
> He also pointed to the drain below the pipe and said it is used to drain
> water from the pipe. "You have water in liquid phase being picked up here.
> Underneath, going here [the plastic container]." Levi was standing there
> when he said these things. If that valve was closed, he would have
> corrected Lewan.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3303682.ece
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi wrote:

Jed Rothwell:> it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with 
steam, that bucket would have overflowed in no time.


Mattia Rizzi: Incorrect since the valve is pratically closed. SImply 
you don't know.


Lewan felt the lower pipe and the valve attached to it and reported it 
was hot.


He also pointed to the drain below the pipe and said it is used to drain 
water from the pipe. "You have water in liquid phase being picked up 
here. Underneath, going here [the plastic container]." Levi was standing 
there when he said these things. If that valve was closed, he would have 
corrected Lewan.


See:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


Wait -- do you mean Miley's recent work on Patterson-type cells?


Nope. Gas loaded ZrPd powder. Similar to Arata. Roughly the same power 
density as Rossi.



I've never argued that what Rossi is claiming is physically 
impossible.  He's too clever to claim perpetual motion or any such 
thing; he's picked something that *could*, after all, be true.


He has also proved it by first principles in the Oct. 6 test. Unless you 
think a 30 L container of water can magically radiate heat for 4 hours 
and yet remain hot while you run 60 L of tap water through it.


It is ridiculous that anyone would question his results after that. 
There is no chance there was a hidden battery, wires or chemical fuel.



"Experts" cut no ice with me, I'm afraid, unless they really are 
experts in the exact subdiscipline in question, which these people 
may or may not be.


They are definitely. The colonel discussed his work with Lewan and 
others, and there is no doubt he is an expert HVAC engineer.


It is conceivable that these people are engaged in some sort of weird 
fraud. I'm sure the machine is real and it produces anomalous heat, but 
that does not preclude the possibility that they're using it to commit 
fraud. People often commit fraud with real technology. In the 1980s hard 
disk companies on the edge of bankruptcy used to ship boxes full of 
bricks instead of hard disks. The customers did not realize they had 
bricks in the warehouse until after the hard disk company vanished. That 
was not evidence that hard disks do not exist, or that these companies 
were incapable of manufacturing them..


If this is fraud, it is being conducted by people who happen to be 
experts in thermodynamics and HVAC. I suppose that would make it easier 
for them to put on what looks like a convincing demonstration. They know 
what tools to use, and how to hook up heavy-duty power cables. Rossi is 
an acknowledged expert in heat engines. No one denies that.




Remember, the scientists at SRI were totally fooled by Uri Geller.


That's a dumb example. As you say, they have to be experts in the 
discipline in question. Those people knew nothing about sleight-of-hand 
magic tricks. Citing them is a perfect example of the misuse of 
authority logical fallacy.



And Steve Jones is a physicist who should really, really understand 
how things can and can't fall down, yet he thinks the WTC came down 
via explosives.


He also thinks that all cold fusion results can be explained as the 
result of recombination, even McKubre's results with an internal 
recombiner. At least he said that's what said he believes. When I 
challenged him in person he refused to say it right out. That's what he 
wrote any number of times on the Internet and in various reports.


Frankly, I don't think he actually believes that. That's preposterous, 
and he is a smart guy. I think he said that because he is a political 
animal who will say anything to gain an advantage. He wanted recognition 
for his cold fusion work, and he thought the only way he could get it 
was to first destroy Fleischmann and Pons.


Taubes said many preposterous things, such as the assertion that power 
demand is lower on weekends and therefore laboratory grade regulated 
power supplies deliver more electricity on weekends, and researchers 
think this is excess heat. He said that on NPR, as I recall. That is 
also preposterous, but I expect he believes it, because he is very, very 
stupid.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Mattia Rizzi]

>What's your point?

I think it's interesting that a *secret* USA customer hired a person that
has worked with Rossi.
But Jed, you missed again the most interesting part of my message.
It's:

Jed Rothwell:> it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam,
that bucket would have overflowed in no time.

Mattia Rizzi: Incorrect since the valve is pratically closed. SImply you
don't know.
By the way, i've readed many comments by guys that are experts of
thermodynamics: nobody will use the "Colonel" approach, but they install a
Demister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demister_%28vapor%29), because with
the Colonel approach you can't separe the liquid suspendend insidere the
vapour, you collect only the liquid already condensed.Correction: with the
Colonel approach you collect *a part *of the water already condensed, since
there isn't a U water trap!
This measurement is flawed like measurements done up to september.

I think it's interesting. Why not install a demister? Btw, they could
install a simple and cheaper *water trap*.
I think that a simply water trap, with only a condensed water of
1liter/hour wouldn't be a problem. Yep, it's a problem when there are
hundred of liquid water mixed with vapour. Mmmh.

2011/11/3 Jed Rothwell 

> Mattia Rizzi wrote:
>
>  > So did the colonel, and so did the document they published.
>> I mean, Rossi and the colonel have worked toghether in the past.
>>
>
> Yes, I know they have. They talked about it. No one disputes that they
> have. What's your point? Do you think that anyone who has worked with Rossi
> is automatically disqualified and must be a fraud?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Mattia Rizzi  wrote:

> By the way, Rossi
> confirmed that he has already worked with the Colonel.

Fioravanti was at the Oct. 6 demonstration.  I wonder if that is what AR meant.

T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi wrote:


> So did the colonel, and so did the document they published.
I mean, Rossi and the colonel have worked toghether in the past.


Yes, I know they have. They talked about it. No one disputes that they 
have. What's your point? Do you think that anyone who has worked with 
Rossi is automatically disqualified and must be a fraud?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Mattia Rizzi]

Jed, i think you missed the most important part of my message.

> So did the colonel, and so did the document they published.
I mean, Rossi and the colonel have worked toghether in the past.

2011/11/3 Jed Rothwell 

> Mattia Rizzi wrote:
>
>  I think that the "Colonel" was hired by Ampenergo.
>>
>
> Why would they hire someone to tell them what they already know? Rossi and
> Ampenergo did not use the colonel to improve their own credibility.
>
>
>
>  By the way, Rossi confirmed that he has already worked with the Colonel.
>>
>
> So did the colonel, and so did the document they published.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi wrote:


I think that the "Colonel" was hired by Ampenergo.


Why would they hire someone to tell them what they already know? Rossi 
and Ampenergo did not use the colonel to improve their own credibility.




By the way, Rossi confirmed that he has already worked with the Colonel.


So did the colonel, and so did the document they published.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-03 04:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 11-11-03 03:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I wrote:

The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said
that they are certain this was dry steam.


I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.

There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry steam. You can 
see the condensate collection bucket right below the pipe, with the 
tube going to it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with 
steam, that bucket would have overflowed in no time.


This colonel was confident that of Rossi's previous tests were valid. 
Ah, but if he is secretly in cahoots with Rossi that's _just_ what he 
_would_ say, isn't it?


I do not believe in conspiracy theories. This one is expanding beyond 
all credibility. You have to believe that Rossi has now paid off 
George Miley and his intrepid grad students as well.


Oh?  Did Miley do an independent rep of Rossi?  I hadn't heard that.  
Got a reference?  I would love to see the paper.


Wait -- do you mean Miley's recent work on Patterson-type cells?

That doesn't vindicate Rossi, at least not that I can see.  It doesn't 
even replicate Patterson.  It shows positive results from Ni-H but 
that's all you can say for it -- it's 'way less power than Patterson 
saw, using a totally different geometry, and it's nothing remotely like 
what Rossi's doing.


I've never argued that what Rossi is claiming is physically impossible.  
He's too clever to claim perpetual motion or any such thing; he's picked 
something that *could*, after all, be true.







The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said that 
they are certain this was dry steam. I'm sure they are right and the 
people here who disagree are wrong. I tend to believe experts who 
have worked in a field for decades, rather than the peanut gallery. 


"Experts" cut no ice with me, I'm afraid, unless they really are 
experts in the exact subdiscipline in question, which these people may 
or may not be.


Remember, the scientists at SRI were totally fooled by Uri Geller.

And Steve Jones is a physicist who should really, really understand 
how things can and can't fall down, yet he thinks the WTC came down 
via explosives.  (A single viewing of the tapes makes that hypothesis 
seem totally silly, IMHO, but I guess ol' SJ doesn't agree.  And he's 
a lot more of an expert on mechanics than I am, I'm quite sure.)



These tests all employed large reservoirs in the reactors, so the 
water level might have varied. It must have varied. There is no 
reason to think the power was stable to within 1%, never mind a 
fraction of 1%.


If I can find the time I'll try to look back at what we've got on the 
tests from last spring, and see how long it should have taken for the 
temp to start shooting up had the power been, say, 2% too high.  I 
suspect it would have happened PDQ, but it'll take a little work (and 
some guesses about reservoirs) to see if I'm right.

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-03 03:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I wrote:

The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said
that they are certain this was dry steam.


I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.

There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry steam. You can 
see the condensate collection bucket right below the pipe, with the 
tube going to it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with 
steam, that bucket would have overflowed in no time.


This colonel was confident that of Rossi's previous tests were valid. 
Ah, but if he is secretly in cahoots with Rossi that's _just_ what he 
_would_ say, isn't it?


I do not believe in conspiracy theories. This one is expanding beyond 
all credibility. You have to believe that Rossi has now paid off 
George Miley and his intrepid grad students as well.


Oh?  Did Miley do an independent rep of Rossi?  I hadn't heard that.  
Got a reference?  I would love to see the paper.



The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said that 
they are certain this was dry steam. I'm sure they are right and the 
people here who disagree are wrong. I tend to believe experts who have 
worked in a field for decades, rather than the peanut gallery. 


"Experts" cut no ice with me, I'm afraid, unless they really are experts 
in the exact subdiscipline in question, which these people may or may 
not be.


Remember, the scientists at SRI were totally fooled by Uri Geller.

And Steve Jones is a physicist who should really, really understand how 
things can and can't fall down, yet he thinks the WTC came down via 
explosives.  (A single viewing of the tapes makes that hypothesis seem 
totally silly, IMHO, but I guess ol' SJ doesn't agree.  And he's a lot 
more of an expert on mechanics than I am, I'm quite sure.)



These tests all employed large reservoirs in the reactors, so the 
water level might have varied. It must have varied. There is no reason 
to think the power was stable to within 1%, never mind a fraction of 1%.


If I can find the time I'll try to look back at what we've got on the 
tests from last spring, and see how long it should have taken for the 
temp to start shooting up had the power been, say, 2% too high.  I 
suspect it would have happened PDQ, but it'll take a little work (and 
some guesses about reservoirs) to see if I'm right.

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Mattia Rizzi]

Correction: with the Colonel approach you collect *a part *of the water
already condensed, since there isn't a U water trap!

2011/11/3 Mattia Rizzi 

> > it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam, that bucket
> would have overflowed in no time.
>
> Incorrect since the valve is pratically closed. SImply you don't know.
> By the way, i've readed many comments by guys that are experts of
> thermodynamics: nobody will use the "Colonel" approach, but they install a
> Demister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demister_%28vapor%29), because
> with the Colonel approach you can't separe the liquid suspendend insidere
> the vapour, you collect only the liquid already condensed.
> This measurement is flawed like measurements done up to september.
> I think that the "Colonel" was hired by Ampenergo. By the way, Rossi
> confirmed that he has already worked with the Colonel.
>
>
> 2011/11/3 Jed Rothwell 
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>> The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said that they
>>> are certain this was dry steam.
>>
>>
>> I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.
>>
>> There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry steam. You can see
>> the condensate collection bucket right below the pipe, with the tube going
>> to it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam, that bucket
>> would have overflowed in no time.
>>
>> This colonel was confident that of Rossi's previous tests were valid. Ah,
>> but if he is secretly in cahoots with Rossi that's *just* what he 
>> *would*say, isn't it?
>>
>> I do not believe in conspiracy theories. This one is expanding beyond all
>> credibility. You have to believe that Rossi has now paid off George Miley
>> and his intrepid grad students as well.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Mattia Rizzi]

> it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam, that bucket
would have overflowed in no time.

Incorrect since the valve is pratically closed. SImply you don't know.
By the way, i've readed many comments by guys that are experts of
thermodynamics: nobody will use the "Colonel" approach, but they install a
Demister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demister_%28vapor%29), because with
the Colonel approach you can't separe the liquid suspendend insidere the
vapour, you collect only the liquid already condensed.
This measurement is flawed like measurements done up to september.
I think that the "Colonel" was hired by Ampenergo. By the way, Rossi
confirmed that he has already worked with the Colonel.

2011/11/3 Jed Rothwell 

> I wrote:
>
> The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said that they
>> are certain this was dry steam.
>
>
> I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.
>
> There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry steam. You can see
> the condensate collection bucket right below the pipe, with the tube going
> to it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam, that bucket
> would have overflowed in no time.
>
> This colonel was confident that of Rossi's previous tests were valid. Ah,
> but if he is secretly in cahoots with Rossi that's *just* what he *would*say, 
> isn't it?
>
> I do not believe in conspiracy theories. This one is expanding beyond all
> credibility. You have to believe that Rossi has now paid off George Miley
> and his intrepid grad students as well.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said that they
> are certain this was dry steam.


I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.

There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry steam. You can see the
condensate collection bucket right below the pipe, with the tube going to
it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam, that bucket
would have overflowed in no time.

This colonel was confident that of Rossi's previous tests were valid. Ah,
but if he is secretly in cahoots with Rossi that's *just* what he
*would*say, isn't it?

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. This one is expanding beyond all
credibility. You have to believe that Rossi has now paid off George Miley
and his intrepid grad students as well.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


Exactly which test do you refer to? What was the date?


Despite my use of the singular, I wasn't thinking of a single specific 
test; as far as I can recall, all the "steam" tests done in the spring 
supposedly had the same output temperature, to within a degree:  101C 
+/- 1 degree.  Since I didn't say anything about flow rate or absolute 
power level, my comments regarding precision of control applied 
equally to any and all such tests.


These tests all employed large reservoirs in the reactors, so the water 
level might have varied. It must have varied. There is no reason to 
think the power was stable to within 1%, never mind a fraction of 1%.



If there had been one test done, ever, with an output temperature 
substantially higher than 110C, it would be a different ballgame.  
But, there wasn't; always the temperature is just a hair over boiling.


Only at sea level in good weather. I have seen water boil considerably 
below 100°C.


The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said that 
they are certain this was dry steam. I'm sure they are right and the 
people here who disagree are wrong. I tend to believe experts who have 
worked in a field for decades, rather than the peanut gallery.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-02 04:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely 
to me. When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it 
falls too far, you throttle it.


This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here.  In the test 
from last spring, the electrical power level was (supposedly) fixed; 
if it wasn't then the calorimetry was nonsense.


Exactly which test do you refer to? What was the date?


Despite my use of the singular, I wasn't thinking of a single specific 
test; as far as I can recall, all the "steam" tests done in the spring 
supposedly had the same output temperature, to within a degree:  101C 
+/- 1 degree.  Since I didn't say anything about flow rate or absolute 
power level, my comments regarding precision of control applied equally 
to any and all such tests.


If there had been one test done, ever, with an output temperature 
substantially higher than 110C, it would be a different ballgame.  But, 
there wasn't; always the temperature is just a hair over boiling.  And 
the flow rate was always fixed a priori, without reference to the actual 
power level after the unit started, which leads directly to the same 
conclusion regarding precision of power control (precisely matched to 
the flow rate, with power variation after "ignition" much less than +/- 
1% ... better, in fact, than +/- 1/10 %).


The one I looked at in the most depth was the K&E test (IIRC), because 
it's the only one for which I saw a coherent output temperature graph.  
That one, in particular, did not show *any* "hunting", and in particular 
showed no positive excursions in the temperature, as one might expect if 
the power were being controlled manually by dialing it up or down to 
keep the temperature steady at or near 101C.


(The only liquid-phase test I'm aware of which was done last spring was 
a private party, Rossi and a couple friends the only ones present, and 
I'm quite content to ignore it.)




There were several. I think they are listed here:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

I believe Rossi adjusts the power in all of them except the self 
sustaining ones, but that does not make the calorimetry nonsense, 
because input power is only a small fraction of output power. 


You are assuming that the input water was fully vaporized, of course.  
Otherwise the use of the term "small fraction" is somewhat misleading.



It makes the calorimetry inaccurate. Of course the right way to do it 
would be to record everything on computer, but that's not Rossi's way, 
as we know.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Harry Veeder]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
>
>
> On 11-11-01 09:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
>
>>
>> Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant
>> with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent.   (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.)  This,
>> in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control.
>
> Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely to me.
> When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it falls too far,
> you throttle it.
>
> This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here.  In the test from
> last spring, the electrical power level was (supposedly) fixed; if it wasn't
> then the calorimetry was nonsense.  Consequently it's not at all clear how
> the reaction rate was being controlled; the system, as described, was
> apparently running open-loop.  (Some people have imagined interesting
> feedback  controls in the blue box but no such thing has ever been claimed
> by anyone who actually knew.)
>
> In the 1MW test it's less clear cut, but one thing stands out:  There's no
> obvious indicator that Rossi could have used to tell him when it was time to
> turn it up or down.  Output temp would lag too much to be used as the
> control variable, and the result would have been a "hunting" temperature
> which wandered all over the place, certainly not an essentially constant
> temperature which was indicative of a power level which was nailed to better
> than 1/2 %.  It would be nice to imagine a sight glass, and Rossi's hand on
> the throttle with his eye glued to the glass, but it's not clear such exists
> anywhere except in our imaginations.
>
> Whatever, all such concerns have been dismissed in earlier posts, so there's
> not a lot of point in arguing it further.
>

If Rossi used the word "control" he might mean something different. ;)
Maybe he meant he can initiate the self sustain mode by first
modulating the input power like so...

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here.

Regurgitated.  ;-)

See?  That is my humor.

T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:
> From Stephen:
>
>> (Terry, what are you talking about?  Sometimes I think I understand your
>> posts but this isn't one of them.)
>
> I believe the honorable Mr. Blanton was being sarcastic. ;-)

At least some people read my posts oft enough to understand.  I hope
you find it somewhat entertaining, as it is intended.  It is how I
work off my frustrations.

Honorable, hah!

T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely to 
me. When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it falls 
too far, you throttle it.


This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here.  In the test 
from last spring, the electrical power level was (supposedly) fixed; 
if it wasn't then the calorimetry was nonsense.


Exactly which test do you refer to? What was the date? There were 
several. I think they are listed here:


http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

I believe Rossi adjusts the power in all of them except the self 
sustaining ones, but that does not make the calorimetry nonsense, 
because input power is only a small fraction of output power. It makes 
the calorimetry inaccurate. Of course the right way to do it would be to 
record everything on computer, but that's not Rossi's way, as we know.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Michele Comitini]

I would not worry too much about the level of water in the boiler.
See this classical example of dobule retroactive feedback for managing
water level ;-) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet

mic


2011/11/2 Stephen A. Lawrence :
>
>
> On 11-11-01 09:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
>
>>
>> Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant
>> with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent.   (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.)  This,
>> in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control.
>
> Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely to me.
> When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it falls too far,
> you throttle it.
>
> This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here.  In the test from
> last spring, the electrical power level was (supposedly) fixed; if it wasn't
> then the calorimetry was nonsense.  Consequently it's not at all clear how
> the reaction rate was being controlled; the system, as described, was
> apparently running open-loop.  (Some people have imagined interesting
> feedback  controls in the blue box but no such thing has ever been claimed
> by anyone who actually knew.)
>
> In the 1MW test it's less clear cut, but one thing stands out:  There's no
> obvious indicator that Rossi could have used to tell him when it was time to
> turn it up or down.  Output temp would lag too much to be used as the
> control variable, and the result would have been a "hunting" temperature
> which wandered all over the place, certainly not an essentially constant
> temperature which was indicative of a power level which was nailed to better
> than 1/2 %.  It would be nice to imagine a sight glass, and Rossi's hand on
> the throttle with his eye glued to the glass, but it's not clear such exists
> anywhere except in our imaginations.
>
> Whatever, all such concerns have been dismissed in earlier posts, so there's
> not a lot of point in arguing it further.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-01 09:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:

Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was
constant with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent.   (That's 9/100 of
1 percent.)  This, in a process which is said to be hard to start
and hard to control.


Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely to 
me. When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it falls 
too far, you throttle it.


This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here.  In the test 
from last spring, the electrical power level was (supposedly) fixed; if 
it wasn't then the calorimetry was nonsense.  Consequently it's not at 
all clear how the reaction rate was being controlled; the system, as 
described, was apparently running open-loop.  (Some people have imagined 
interesting feedback  controls in the blue box but no such thing has 
ever been claimed by anyone who actually knew.)


In the 1MW test it's less clear cut, but one thing stands out:  There's 
no obvious indicator that Rossi could have used to tell him when it was 
time to turn it up or down.  Output temp would lag too much to be used 
as the control variable, and the result would have been a "hunting" 
temperature which wandered all over the place, certainly not an 
essentially constant temperature which was indicative of a power level 
which was nailed to better than 1/2 %.  It would be nice to imagine a 
sight glass, and Rossi's hand on the throttle with his eye glued to the 
glass, but it's not clear such exists anywhere except in our imaginations.


Whatever, all such concerns have been dismissed in earlier posts, so 
there's not a lot of point in arguing it further.

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-02 02:22 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:

Hi,

On 2-11-2011 19:07, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,


No I didn't.  (No credit where no credit is due, please.)  It's the 
same argument that's been bashed around for the last how-ever-many 
months.


I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level could have 
been held constant to better than 1%, and precisely matched to the 
pump rate.  Jed and a number of other people see no problem with it.  
That's it, in a nutshell, and my recent post didn't contain anything 
new except a simple calculation which nobody had bothered to do 
previously.


Ok, then let me repeat it.


No need, I read it the first time.  It has nothing to do with what I 
said (aside from my '50%' comment), and I have no idea why you felt the 
need to repeat it.  It certainly doesn't bear on the apparently fabulous 
precision of the output control.  Since it's not relevant I felt no need 
to spend time answering it.


Off hand I'd say you didn't get my point, and probably still haven't.  
If not, well, too bad.  Read the arguments from last summer if you want 
to see it hammered on some more.




You are ignoring some simple facts.

As Sterling Allan points out at: 
http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/
"Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had 
to make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in 
self-sustain mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level.  
The customer opted to go for the self-sustain mode."


So in fact 1 MW was actually achieved by >>> 107 <<< (10 kW) modules 
containing each 3 e-Cats of 3.3 kW; see also the pictures of Rossi's 
report for these details. http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk


So what?  What's this got to do with the remarkable degree of control 
being exhibited?





In my opinion it only shows that to get 1 MW with a COP of infinite 
from such a system in self-sustain-mode it needs to be dimensioned to 
produce 2 MW with a COP of 6 in not-self-sustain-mode.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 2-11-2011 19:07, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,


No I didn't.  (No credit where no credit is due, please.)  It's the 
same argument that's been bashed around for the last how-ever-many 
months.


I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level could have been 
held constant to better than 1%, and precisely matched to the pump 
rate.  Jed and a number of other people see no problem with it.  
That's it, in a nutshell, and my recent post didn't contain anything 
new except a simple calculation which nobody had bothered to do 
previously.


Ok, then let me repeat it.
You are ignoring some simple facts.

As Sterling Allan points out at: 
http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/
"Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to 
make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain 
mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level.  The customer 
opted to go for the self-sustain mode."


So in fact 1 MW was actually achieved by >>> 107 <<< (10 kW) modules 
containing each 3 e-Cats of 3.3 kW; see also the pictures of Rossi's 
report for these details. http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk


In my opinion it only shows that to get 1 MW with a COP of infinite from 
such a system in self-sustain-mode it needs to be dimensioned to produce 
2 MW with a COP of 6 in not-self-sustain-mode.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level could have been 
held constant to better than 1%, and precisely matched to the pump 
rate.  Jed and a number of other people see no problem with it.


Nonsense! I never said that. I said I assume the water level fluctuates. 
That's how steam engines with boilers work.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Stephen:

> (Terry, what are you talking about?  Sometimes I think I understand your
> posts but this isn't one of them.)

I believe the honorable Mr. Blanton was being sarcastic. ;-)

To be honest, I wasn't sure at first as well. My excuse was that I had
been highly distracted for the past couple of days while focusing my
writing skills on an "opus" pertaining to my personal experiences at
having been on the NET BoD.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-01 10:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:


Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?

No he left it in Rossi's care.  Andrea plans to sell it again to another buyer.


Boy, that sure saves a lot of assembly time and effort!  Should speed up 
the rate of eCat deliveries by a lot if he can get all customers to 
accept the same terms.



(Terry, what are you talking about?  Sometimes I think I understand your 
posts but this isn't one of them.)

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:

Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,


No I didn't.  (No credit where no credit is due, please.)  It's the same 
argument that's been bashed around for the last how-ever-many months.


I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level could have been 
held constant to better than 1%, and precisely matched to the pump 
rate.  Jed and a number of other people see no problem with it.  That's 
it, in a nutshell, and my recent post didn't contain anything new except 
a simple calculation which nobody had bothered to do previously.

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:
> Terry sez:
>
>>> If there is someone in Bologna who could snoop around the Rossi
>>> building and send us some intel, that would be fantastic.
>>
>> Someone who is registered on his web log could just ask (except Jed :-).
>
> A famous quote from Animal House comes to mind:
>
> Dean Vernon Wormer: "Put Neidermeyer on it..."
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes
>
> I'll leave it to everyone's imagination as to who Neidermeyer might be.

K  ?

T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Terry sez:

>> If there is someone in Bologna who could snoop around the Rossi
>> building and send us some intel, that would be fantastic.
>
> Someone who is registered on his web log could just ask (except Jed :-).

A famous quote from Animal House comes to mind:

Dean Vernon Wormer: "Put Neidermeyer on it..."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes

I'll leave it to everyone's imagination as to who Neidermeyer might be.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, ecat builder  wrote:

> If there is someone in Bologna who could snoop around the Rossi
> building and send us some intel, that would be fantastic.

Someone who is registered on his web log could just ask (except Jed :-).

T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[ecat builder]

The value of the first 1MW plant to the first dozen customers will not
be its steam, per se: Its getting first-mover advantage on learning
about this new technology that might replace 1/5 of the world economy.
Yes, the customer probably left the container on site with rights to
use it. Rossi says the next container-cat will be ready in 3
months--so a lease-back for sales demos is probably in the contract.
However, if the container was indeed trucked off, who knows!?

If there is someone in Bologna who could snoop around the Rossi
building and send us some intel, that would be fantastic. How many
containers in the back yard? Does the generator run during the day or
night? Is Rossi hiring like crazy? Or is Rossi packing up to go to the
states?

Maybe we take a collection to fund a little private investigating

- Brad

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Terry sez:

...

> Personally, I don't think he trucked it off since it would have taken
> hours to un-plumb it.  Not to mention that a number of the little
> kittens resided on the roof of the container.

And as all cat owners, of the biological configuration know, they will
seek out warmth. So, if one wants to locate a missing eCat, put a GPS
tracking system on your cat. Sooner or later...

BTW, our recently rescued kitty, Charm, has now acquired full outdoor
privileges. This has eased feline tensions within our household. It
has allowed Charm to channel her teenage "aggressions" in a more
natural way elsewhere. We have also purchased a very elaborate
multi-platform cat tree that goes all the way to the ceiling. Zoey,
has claimed it as hers. Defensible position.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:08 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:
> Jed sez:
>
>> No idea.
>
> Thank-u Jed,
>
> It's back to the candy store for Mongo.

Candygram for Mongo:

"The test was for a customer - his first name was "Colonel" - who
immediately hooked up the 20-ft container it was placed in and drove
it away. It is the A.P., after all, with its thousands of news outlets
around the globe, which can really tell the world what has happened."

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-696792

But Mr. Shea wasn't there and does not quote his source.

Personally, I don't think he trucked it off since it would have taken
hours to un-plumb it.  Not to mention that a number of the little
kittens resided on the roof of the container.

T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Jed sez:

> No idea.

Thank-u Jed,

It's back to the candy store for Mongo.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


Mongo want's to know who's currently in possession of the eCat. Cuz...
maybe that's where Mongo left left his box of candy.

Rossi, or the alleged anonymous customer?

Inquiring Minds Wanna Know.


No idea.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Terry Sez:

>> What did I miss?

> My acerbic sense of humor.

Heh!

Specifically meant for Mr. Murray's benefit?

Sorry, Mongo still a little cunfuz'd on this point. (He lost his box
of candy in all the excitement.)

Mongo want's to know who's currently in possession of the eCat. Cuz...
maybe that's where Mongo left left his box of candy.

Rossi, or the alleged anonymous customer?

Inquiring Minds Wanna Know.

In mutual service:

"Mongo"


Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:49 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

> What did I miss?

My acerbic sense of humor.

T

RE: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>>> Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?

>> No he left it in Rossi's care.  Andrea plans to sell it again to another
buyer.

> A variation on the gift that keeps on giving.

That's humorous. But then... such a scenario doesn't make much sense to me.
Why would the anonymous customer after presumably forking over a large sum
of money then proceed to leave it in Rossi's care - unless... perhaps part
of the contract stipulated that Rossi was required to repair what is
presumed to have been a few minor anomalies that had been detected during
the run, like some noticed leaks. Just wondering out loud here.

I've been out of the loop for the last couple of days, and I haven't been
able to keep up with the large volume of Vortex posts. I feel like I might
have missed something important.

I was under the impression that Rossi's anonymous customer had actually
spirited the eCat away at the conclusion of the Oct 28 performance
evaluation. I thought I recalled reading a humorous post (or two) that
speculated over why had not some of the Oct 28 participants given chase on
their scooters and vespas, as if they were the Paparazzi trying to determine
the identification & address of the anonymous customer.

At least I seem to recall some posts that seemed to indicate that the whole
caboodle had been taken away. What did I miss?

Can someone once again clarify where the current where-abouts of Rossi's big
eCat is?

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Terry Blanton  wrote:


> > Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?
>
> No he left it in Rossi's care.  Andrea plans to sell it again to another
> buyer.
>

A variation on the gift that keeps on giving.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Rich Murray]

Thanks for reading my post and answering the question -- I wonder if
the buyer has the right to cancel the purchase and get his money back
at this point?  R

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:
>
>> Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?
>
> No he left it in Rossi's care.  Andrea plans to sell it again to another 
> buyer.
>
> T
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murray  wrote:

> Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?

No he left it in Rossi's care.  Andrea plans to sell it again to another buyer.

T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Rich Murray]

Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument, worthy of the level
of critical acumen shown by the very astute Joshua Cude, that Rossi
claims a stablility of control of the level of power output that seems
unbelievable, given the evident problems of controlling the chaotic
output of a very poorly understood process, which in the past has
produced dozens of explosions, according to Rossi, and which at the
start of this run created enough danger of runaway heat as to make it
necessary to reduce power input by half, reducing the claimed output
heat by half -- this claim, however, based on the implausible
assertion that most of the input water is vaporized... whereas if only
tiny percent of the weight of input water is vaporized, then at the
low pressures within the over 100 reactors in parallel, the
water-steam froth will naturally stay at 105-110 C for 4.5 hours, as
observed, coasting on the stored electric energy from the initial
heating -- the froth probably is impeding the flow in complex, chaotic
ways within the over 100 reactors, so that the single output
temperature is some kind of average of over 100 reactors -- any ideas
how much boiler scale would build up from the minerals in city water
at the places within each reactor that have the slowest water flow and
the highest temperatures from the electric heater?

Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?

within mutual service, Rich Murray

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant
> with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent.   (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.)  This,
> in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control.


Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely to me.
When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it falls too far,
you throttle it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 1-11-2011 22:31, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
That's with multiple E-cats working together, and with a system which 
was flaky enough that the final power level measured was just under 
half what it was supposed to be (that's a 50% variation from what was 
predicted).


So, we've got a system whose output can't be predicted to better than 
50%, yet its power output can be controlled with a precision of better 
than +/- 1/2 of a percent.


Doesn't that strike you as just a little strange?


Not at all, as you are ignoring some simple facts.

As Sterling Allan points out at: 
http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/
"Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to 
make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain 
mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level.  The customer 
opted to go for the self-sustain mode."


So in fact 1 MW was actually achieved by >>> 107 <<< (10 kW) modules 
containing each 3 e-Cats of 3.3 kW; see also the pictures of Rossi's 
report for these details. http://db.tt/wu4OLbgk


In my opinion it only shows that to get 1 MW with a COP of infinite from 
such a system in self-sustain-mode it needs to be dimensioned to produce 
2 MW with a COP of 6 in not-self-sustain-mode.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Alan J. Fletcher wrote [quoting Colonel Fioravanti):
The only case when you have low steam quality or droplets or liquid 
water in this steam is in long or poorly isolated tubes fro steam 
transport. Steam then condenses and there will be a flow of water 
together with the steam.


This is not the case with the Ecat he said, and he saw no doubt what 
so ever on the steam quality at atmospheric pressure and 105 degrees.


On 11-10-31 08:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Smart man.  He is exactly right contrary to many discussions here.


Perhaps.  Or perhaps he's turning an expert eye on the trees and 
ignoring the forest.


Let's try to put some numbers on the thing which is apparently not a 
problem save in the minds of a few silly worrywarts, shall we?


Specific heat of water is about 4 j/g; specific heat of steam is about 2 
j/g (according to Wikipedia).  Heat of vaporization of water is about 
2000 j/g (according to Wikipedia).  So, to take a gram of water from 30 
degrees to 100 degrees takes about 280 joules; to vaporize it takes 
another 2000 joules; to raise the temperature of the steam to 101, 102, 
105, and 110 C takes, respectively, an additional 2, 4, 10, or 20 joules.


The totals, then for 100, 101, 102, 105, and 110 C steam output are 
2280, 2282, 2284, 2290, and 2300 joules per gram of 30 degree input 
water pumped through the system.


First, let's look at the test from last spring, where there was 
presumably also "no problem" with the steam quality.


The steam output temperature was held between 100C and 102C during that 
test.  The water flow rate was set, a priori, with (supposedly) no 
adjustments made to control variations in the output temperature; 
indeed, that was a *requirement* for the calorimetry which was done.  
Consequently, the power level was apparently matched, a posteriori, to 
the water flow rate, to within some amount of variation which we shall 
now calculate.


To achieve the demonstrated level of control over the output 
temperature, which was held to a variation of less than +/- 1 degree 
centered on 101C, the power generated must have been held to between 
2280 and 2284 joules per gram of water pumped through the system.  Since 
the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant with 
a precision of +/- 0.09 percent.   (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.)  This, 
in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control.  Can 
you really say you don't see any problem with that claim?


Now, I haven't been through the reports on the 1 MW test (sorry, don't 
have time, really, and I mean it, I sure would like to), but what I've 
read on Vortex is that, once again, the claim is being made that during 
the test, the generator made dry steam out of all the input water, with 
a fixed pump rate.  This time the output temp was 105C.  Now, let's take 
that at face value, and say it was 105C at 1 atm, and that, in fact, the 
output temp may actually have varied from 100C to 110C (give the man a 
little wiggle room!).  In that case, given a fixed flow rate of cooling 
water, the actual power generated must have been held to between 2280 
and 2300 joules per gram of water.  Since the flow rate was fixed, that 
implies the power level was matched to the flow rate with a variation in 
power of +/- 0.44 percent (that's less than 1/2 of a percent variation 
in power level).  That's with multiple E-cats working together, and with 
a system which was flaky enough that the final power level measured was 
just under half what it was supposed to be (that's a 50% variation from 
what was predicted).


So, we've got a system whose output can't be predicted to better than 
50%, yet its power output can be controlled with a precision of better 
than +/- 1/2 of a percent.


Doesn't that strike you as just a little strange?





T

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Jouni Valkonen]

Terry Blanton  wrote:
> Smart man.  He is exactly right contrary to many discussions here.

Yes indeed, It is curious how hard this thing has been for many to
understand, that it is impossible to get low quality steam by boiling in
low pressure. But low quality steam can be made only by rapidly cooling
high pressure and high velocity steam.

  —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Terry Blanton]

Smart man.  He is exactly right contrary to many discussions here.

T

[Vo]:Mats Lewan on Steam Quality

[Alan J Fletcher]

Svar till Nisse1. Only two thermocouples were used - one
in the water tank from which the pumps got the water, one at the steam
outlet outside the container.
2. I talked a lot with the examiner Fioravanti. He seemed very
experienced and he didn’t believe a single thing in the discussion on the
steam quality. He said that there are three stages in steam systems.

1. Water being heated.
2. Water boiling and steam being produced. Steam temperature is only
defined by pressure here. At atmospheric pressure it’s 100 degrees
centigrade.
3. Steam transported away from the water and heated further. This is
basically dry steam.
The only case when you have low steam quality or droplets or liquid water
in this steam is in long or poorly isolated tubes fro steam transport.
Steam then condenses and there will be a flow of water together with the
steam.
This is not the case with the Ecat he said, and he saw no doubt what so
ever on the steam quality at atmospheric pressure and 105
degrees.

3. Two common water meters - one for each pump that was running.
4. The generator supplied power also to the pumps and the four fans on
the dissipators (nominal 4x5 kW).
Mats Lewan, Ny Teknik 29 Oct 2011 23:52

(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- Hi,
google!)