subject:"\[Vo\]\:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR\?"

I'm coming to this discussion a little late, I know, and I'll probably
repeat points others have covered, but as I read through the nonsense
Rothwell writes, I can't carry on to the next nonsensical paragraph until
I've dealt with the previous, so I'll post my thoughts as I work through
it. If you feel he's been adequately refuted by others already, feel free
to ignore.


On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:


 In this case you should do what I described earlier:

 Bring ~30 L of water to boil in a large pot

 Insulate the pot, but not much, so that the outer layer is still too hot
 to touch (60 to 80 deg C).

 Check the temperature periodically for 4 hours and see whether it remains
 at boiling temperature, or cools down.

 That may sound silly, but I am 100% serious. Any skeptic who sincerely
 believes the claim may be mistaken should be willing to do this test.


That you would even write this shows that you pay no attention to the
experiment, or what other people try to tell you about it. It is not simply
a large pot. It is a large 100-kg device, with plenty of volume unaccounted
for. You can store energy in 100 kg of material heated to a high
temperature. You cannot store much energy in a simple pot. You can also put
fuel into large unaccounted for volume. You can't do that in a pot.

 Frankly, if anyone is being silly it is the skeptics who are unwilling to
 try this, or to deal with the fact that this is a direct simulation of eCat
 behavior.


It's not a direct simulation because a 1-kg pot is not like a 100-kg
container. And there is no need for skeptics to do anything when it is
perfectly obvious that a 100-kg device can easily keep water boiling for 4
hours, or 40 hours for that matter.


 However, you can ignore that, not replace the water, and simply look at
 the heat lost from 30 L container.


OK. For a container that size at 60C  in a room at 30C, covered with foil
with an emissivity less than 10%, the heat loss is about 50 W. Over 3.5
hours, that's less than a MJ (less then 3/4 MJ). You don't think you can
store 3/4 MJ in 100 kg of material, at any temperature?



 This is a much easier test than making a copy of the reactor. This is as
 definitive and irrefutable as a test with a copy would be. This test gets
 to the point, without confusing the issue, and without getting into debates
 about trivial and irrelevant matters such as the placement of the cooling
 loop outlet thermocouple.


Or such as the heat or chemical fuel that you can store in a 100 kg device.



 The only way this may not model the reactor in all important respects
 would be if there is a hidden source of chemical or electric energy. There
 is absolute no evidence for that.


Well, now, if there were evidence for it, it wouldn't be hidden, would it?
There is absolutely no evidence for a nuclear source either.


And you left out a hidden source of thermal energy storage.



 To put it another way, if there is a hidden source, it is hidden so well
 no expert has seen any trace of it, and there no suggestions anywhere as to
 how you might simulate it; i.e. how you might hide wires large enough to
 keep a 30 L pot boiling for 4 hours.


You're just not listening. There are suggestions all over the internet for
how you might simulate it with thermal storage, thermite, alcohol and
oxygen candles, and so on. For your reduced experiment, it would be simple
in fact.




 (There are a few crackpot ideas about putting bricks heated to 3000 deg C
 into the reactor beforehand. There is no way that could work, and it would
 be dangerous, so do not try it.)


A sure sign that you do not have a rebuttal for the actual argument is that
you replace it with an absurd one. No one suggested heating bricks to
3000C, nor is it necessary to do it beforehand. For your simplified
experiment of supplying the heat lost through the insulation, less than a
MJ is needed. Even if you double that to keep the water boiling it's only 2
MJ. That's a small fraction of the 34 MJ of heat that went in during the
pre-heat phase. And 10 kg of fire brick (only 1/10 of the total mass) only
has to change temperature by about 200C to provide that heat. Heating fire
brick to 1000C should not be a problem to provide much more. Or use a salt
like sodium nitrate with an even higher heat capacity, and a large heat of
fusion (190 J/g) at the melting point of 308C, for even more storage with a
relatively small temperature change.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:


 I was assuming that nearly all of the heat is stored in water, and that
 heat stored in the core is insignificant because it is metal, and most
 metals have about 10 times lower specific heat than water. I was leaving
 out the core altogether.


Water cannot store heat to keep itself boiling even for a moment. Unless
the pressure is slowly decreased. Where do you get your ideas?

I assume that adding any kind of simulated core will only make the thing
 cool down faster.


Adding heat will make it cool off faster? How does that work?



 HOWEVER, if you want to do this test, and you feel the core is important,
 you should simulate it. That may mean you heat it up a core separately and
 then immerse it in the liquid. Or you put electric heaters into the core,
 similar to the ones Rossi uses, and then heat the whole thing for a few
 hours until the water boils. I am not sure what material would be a good
 choice. Metal, rather than a brick.


Why? Metal has a higher volume heat capacity, but a lower mass heat
capacity, and lower resistance to heat, unless you can contain the molten
metal. Probably either would work, depending on the actual amount of heat
lost in the 3.25 hours.




 Conversely, an internal heater would necessarily be more than 100C. If
 there were a slow thermal transfer between the core and the water, as is
 demonstrated by the input power prior to the onset of boiling, the core
 could elevate to much higher temperatures, and continue releasing that
 stored heat, slowly decreasing temperature after power is removed. A 500C
 core and 300C core both produce ~100C water and some amount of steam.


 I knew that, but as I said, I figured a 500 deg C metal core would have
 less thermal mass than an equivalent mass of water at 100 deg C. Even by
 volume, nothing holds more heat than water, as far as I know.



Now, you're just not thinking, or feigning ignorance to cling to your
point. A 500C metal core may have less thermal energy (relative to ambient)
than an equivalent mass of water at 100C, but that's not the point.


First, heat flows from hotter to colder objects. That's one of your
favorite laws. So, regardless of heat capacities, a hotter metal core will
contribute heat to the water.


Second, the core might be more massive. After all the device weighs 100 kg,
and the water only 30 kg.


More importantly, the thermal energy in the water is quite useless as far
as keeping the water boiling is concerned. It doesn't contribute at all.
What matters is simply the amount of thermal mass stored in the core, and
the rate at which it is drawn down. The comparison to water is irrelevant.


And for your simplified scenario, where you only consider the heat lost
through the insulation, a few kg of either would supply the necessary heat
with a 500 hundred degree temperature change, and 10 kg of brick would
require only a change in the temperature of 200 degrees. That's still only
10% of the mass of the device.


 It would be unrealistic to make the simulated core more than 500 deg C. I
 do not think Rossi's electric heaters can make it hotter than that.


Well, 500C would be enough for 5 - 10 kg of fire brick, or maybe 10 - 20 kg
of copper or iron, or only a few kg of sodium nitrate. (Again in your
simplified scenario; more is needed to account for the flow of water
through the ecat.)


And why is more than 500C unrealistic? The elements on a stove are much
hotter than 500C, and they're heated by electricity where cooling is
efficient. Inside the ecat, with  2.5 kW power input for 3.5 hours, and
very little power out, something has to get pretty hot.


Finally, how is I do not think… supposed to represent an argument when
you say it about the feasibility of heating unknown materials in an ecat,
but It's almost certainly impossible means nothing when most nuclear
physicists say it about cold fusion?

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


 If you trust there was water flowing thorough at the rate reported by
 Rossi, then replace 4 L every 15 minutes as I originally suggested:


This seems wrong. The pump is rated at 12L/h, and at the end of the run the
rate is doubled, according to Lewan. So it was at most 6 L/h, not 16 as you
claim. But Lewan actually measured the output rate to be about 3.5 L/h, and
we have no evidence that the input rate was any higher than that.



 This will make it cool to room temperature in ~40 min., the way the
 original did.


I don't understand where you get this. At 19:08, the hydrogen pressure was
eliminated, and the input flow increased, and then it cooled from 117C to
105C by 19:52 (44 minutes later). That's 12 degrees in 44 minutes. Not 100C
in 40 minutes. You seem to be making stuff up.


 Obviously there was *some* water going out, because otherwise the heat
 exchanger would not have gotten hot. Nothing would have reached it. But if
 you sincerely believe this flow was only a few liters per hour then don't
 bother simulating it.


Lewan reported measuring the outflow to be 0.91 g/s or about 3.3 L/hr. Why
would he lie?

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  If you wish to disprove these claims, you must demonstrate by
 conventional means that you can keep a reactor of this size at boiling
 temperatures for 4 hours, while it remains too hot to touch.


There is no need to demonstrate this. It is patently obvious that a 100-kg
device of that size can stay at boiling temperature for 40 hours without
any need of nuclear reactions.


The heat losses by radiation may be 50 W or so, and power required to bring
water to boiling at the rate of Lewan's reported 0.91 g/s is about 400W. So
to be generous, one kW power for 3.5 hours could produce what was observed
in that experiment. That makes a total of about 13 MJ.


The input power was about 3 times that. And storing 13 MJ is child's play,
when you have 100 kg to work with. Fire brick could do it with less than a
third of that mass. Using liquid sodium nitrate, you could do it with less
than 20 kg, and you wouldn't have to heat it above 500C.


And fuel. Energy density of alcohol is 30 MJ/kg. So, 400 mL of alcohol and
a chemical source of oxygen and you're in business. Four liters of alcohol,
and you could go all day. You can buy 3 kW propane heaters that are one
tenth the mass of that thing and it can put out 3 kW for hours. And finding
a source of oxygen and hiding the output gas is really a trivial problem
compared to inventing a nuclear reaction that produces heat but no
radiation at ordinary temperatures in non-radioactive material.


He's producing 13 MJ with a 100 kg device for a .13MJ/kg energy density.
Chemical fuel is in the range of 50 MJ/kg density, and commercial devices
run for a couple of hours can give around 4 MJ/kg. (Of course, they
approach the density of the fuel, the longer they run.) So, Rossi's device
isn't even 1/10 as good as off-the-shelf commercial devices. And we're
supposed to be impressed?


This demonstration is so far from proof of nuclear reactions, it's not even
funny.



 Skeptics should confront the facts head on, instead of raising
 petty objections to unimportant aspects of the test. If you seriously
 believe these results are in error, or that this can done with conventional
 stored energy or some sort of hidden chemical device, prove it. You claim
 violates so many established laws of physics, you will win the Nobel prize.


 You seem to have a double standard when evaluating cold fusion claims:


You seriously believe these results come from nuclear reactions, and yet
you don't demand that Rossi prove that he is using only Ni and a few grams
of hydrogen by showing us the contents of the cell (not the composition
necessarily). You don't demand that he explain the details of the nuclear
reaction and why it doesn't produce gamma rays or neutrons.


Yet, you don't believe that it could be a chemical reaction or thermal
storage unless the exact reaction or method of storage is demonstrated and
explained in detail.


The whole claim is based on energy density, but the fact is that the energy
density is completely consistent with either nuclear or chemical energy
sources.  Beyond that the evidence for nuclear is no better than for
chemical. On which planet does that constitute proof of a nuclear source?

RE: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-11 Thread Robert Leguillon

AG, look at the date.
The Gallentini pages you refer to were produced in July, for the December and 
January tests, as a direct answer to Krivit's concerns; that is why BY MASS was 
all in caps. Steven Krivit, of New Energy Times, had traveled to Italy for an 
interview with Rossi. An E-Cat was demonstrated for him, and it is obvious to 
all but the most ardent fanbois, that the demonstration failed. 
Unfortunately, he went on to dismiss the earlier tests based on steam quality 
that didn't quite describe the real heart of the possible error.  I believe 
that he overreached too quickly and proceeded to insult many people without the 
necessary tact. There are also cultural differences that were not heeded.
Nevertheless, I would recommend reading Krivit's Report #3, if you've never 
read it:
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml
It's quite comprehensive, and can provide much-needed context.
That said, MY is incorrect. In the December and January test it IS plain as day 
that there is not complete vaporization, BUT...
Even if it is 100% water, the energy in is not sufficient to bring the water to 
boiling; at least, that's what we all believed at the time.  You see, they 
measured the pump output prior to the test, and we all assumed that it was a 
fixed output paristaltic pump. After research, people watching closely 
investigated and found it is a variable rate and variable displacement pump. 
Observers noted that in multiple videos where Rossi claims the same flow rate, 
you can hear different rates of pump operation in the background (it makes a 
distinct clicking sound).
Why all this attention to the pump? In the September demo, the observers were 
very careful to measure input water flow regularly. It was discovered that the 
pump releases significantly more water when open to the air than it does when 
connected to the E-Cat. 
This brings the December and January tests into question. Previously, it 
appeared that, even absent any evaporation, the E-Cats did not have enough 
power to reach 100C.  If the flow rate is lower than believed, though, that 
could close the excess power gap.   

 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:53:51 +1030
 From: aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work 
 without LENR?
 
 So you did not read the last 2 pages? Where an expert in steam quality, 
 measured and made adjustments in the order of -2% to the energy output. 
 There was no invalidation, no matter how much you wish there was.
 
 
 On 12/11/2011 5:38 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
  On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com 
  mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
  mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't access that paper at the moment -- the site
   returns an account suspended error.
 
  He just needs to buy bytes.  But Jed posted the Levi report here:
 
  http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf
 
 
  Thanks.  That's one of the many experiments which assumes the water 
  was completely evaporated.  There's no evidence whatever that it was.  
  A small portion of liquid water would totally invalidate the result.  
  It's typical of a run which has been widely and properly criticized.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-11 Thread Aussie Guy E-Cat

I would expect the pump noise to alter. Before boiling occurred the pump 
only had to contend with flow loss induced pressure requirements. When 
steam was generated it had to handle the flow losses plus the steam 
pressure on the unboiled water that would be trying to force the feed 
water back into the feed water pump. IE when the water was boiling and 
generating pressure, the pump would have to do more work to continue to 
supply a constant flow of water to the E-Cat than when the water was not 
boiling. Boiler feed water pumps must be sized to deliver the required 
flow rate at the boiler pressure relief valve rating: 
http://www.mckenziecorp.com/boiler_feedwater.htm I would find it strange 
if the pump sound did not alter as the steam pressure inside the E-Cat 
built up and varied. Why is it strange that the pump delivered more 
water when pumping to air than into the E-Cat?


Steam quality was measured in the tests in question. Output 
overstatement due to non vaporized water was stated to be in the range 
-2% to - 4.7%. With 400 Watts in (measured and logged every 8 seconds) 
and 12,000 Watts out (logged every 2 seconds) the amount of non 
vaporized water does not matter.


As for Krivit in Italy did you actually listen to the way he asked 
questions? He was rude and insulting. To an Italian his actions would 
have just shut them down. Did you see Levi's reactions as Krivit 
questioned and treated him like some dumb school kid who was telling 
lies? If these guys were not gentlemen, Krivit would have been sleeping 
with the fishes because of his lack of respect. And you wonder why 
Americans have such a bad reputation around the world? Krivit needs to 
grow up and apologize to the Italians for the way he treated them back 
then and even more so now. Krivit's reporting is so one sided as to call 
his and who he is working for agenda into question. As far as I can see 
Rossi is spot on calling many around him a snake.



On 12/11/2011 6:45 PM, Robert Leguillon wrote:

AG, look at the date.
The Gallentini pages you refer to were produced in July, for the 
December and January tests, as a direct answer to Krivit's concerns; 
that is why BY MASS was all in caps. Steven Krivit, of New Energy 
Times, had traveled to Italy for an interview with Rossi. An E-Cat was 
demonstrated for him, and it is obvious to all but the most ardent 
fanbois, that the demonstration failed.
Unfortunately, he went on to dismiss the earlier tests based on steam 
quality that didn't quite describe the real heart of the possible 
error.  I believe that he overreached too quickly and proceeded to 
insult many people without the necessary tact. There are also cultural 
differences that were not heeded.
Nevertheless, I would recommend reading Krivit's Report #3, if you've 
never read it:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/NET370.shtml
It's quite comprehensive, and can provide much-needed context.
That said, MY is incorrect. In the December and January test it IS 
plain as day that there is not complete vaporization, BUT...
Even if it is 100% water, the energy in is not sufficient to bring the 
water to boiling; at least, that's what we all believed at the 
time.  You see, they measured the pump output prior to the test, and 
we all assumed that it was a fixed output paristaltic pump. After 
research, people watching closely investigated and found it is a 
variable rate and variable displacement pump. Observers noted that in 
multiple videos where Rossi claims the same flow rate, you can hear 
different rates of pump operation in the background (it makes a 
distinct clicking sound).
Why all this attention to the pump? In the September demo, the 
observers were very careful to measure input water flow regularly. It 
was discovered that the pump releases significantly more water when 
open to the air than it does when connected to the E-Cat.
This brings the December and January tests into question. Previously, 
it appeared that, even absent any evaporation, the E-Cats did not have 
enough power to reach 100C.  If the flow rate is lower than believed, 
though, that could close the excess power gap.


 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:53:51 +1030
 From: aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they 
work without LENR?


 So you did not read the last 2 pages? Where an expert in steam quality,
 measured and made adjustments in the order of -2% to the energy output.
 There was no invalidation, no matter how much you wish there was.


 On 12/11/2011 5:38 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
  On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
  mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com
  mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
   I can't access that paper at the moment -- the site
   returns an account suspended error.
 
  He just needs to buy bytes. But Jed posted the Levi report here:

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-11 Thread Mary Yugo

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:


 As for Krivit in Italy did you actually listen to the way he asked
 questions? He was rude and insulting. To an Italian his actions would have
 just shut them down. Did you see Levi's reactions as Krivit questioned and
 treated him like some dumb school kid who was telling lies? If these guys
 were not gentlemen, Krivit would have been sleeping with the fishes because
 of his lack of respect. And you wonder why Americans have such a bad
 reputation around the world? Krivit needs to grow up and apologize to the
 Italians for the way he treated them back then and even more so now.
 Krivit's reporting is so one sided as to call his and who he is working for
 agenda into question. As far as I can see Rossi is spot on calling many
 around him a snake.


Talk about rude and insulting, your characterization of Italians, as a
violent people who respond to scientific critique with murder, is racist.

I forgot: how do you explain Levi's failure in all this time to repeat a
simple 18 hour experiment that supposedly yielded spectacular power levels
in an almost incontrovertible manner?

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-11 Thread Robert Lynn

You are both going over the top here.  I think in scientific discourse
something along the lines of Yeat's Second Coming is worth holding in
mind:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate
intensity

On 11 December 2011 16:13, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat 
 aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:


 As for Krivit in Italy did you actually listen to the way he asked
 questions? He was rude and insulting. To an Italian his actions would have
 just shut them down. Did you see Levi's reactions as Krivit questioned and
 treated him like some dumb school kid who was telling lies? If these guys
 were not gentlemen, Krivit would have been sleeping with the fishes because
 of his lack of respect. And you wonder why Americans have such a bad
 reputation around the world? Krivit needs to grow up and apologize to the
 Italians for the way he treated them back then and even more so now.
 Krivit's reporting is so one sided as to call his and who he is working for
 agenda into question. As far as I can see Rossi is spot on calling many
 around him a snake.


 Talk about rude and insulting, your characterization of Italians, as a
 violent people who respond to scientific critique with murder, is racist.

 I forgot: how do you explain Levi's failure in all this time to repeat a
 simple 18 hour experiment that supposedly yielded spectacular power levels
 in an almost incontrovertible manner?

[Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

I wish someone had taken the considerable trouble to duplicate Rossi's
small E-cat and Ottoman (Oct 6) experiments.  By this, I mean to make
devices as similar as possible as Rossi's and to show that the experimental
results KE and Lewan got could be obtained by mismeasurement rather than
LENR heat production.

There is a nice precedent in the case of Steorn.   Steorn claimed to have a
magnetic pulse motor that was overunity and they produced a misleading
test video with a particular device -- actually several.  A forum
participant, pseudonym Alsetalokin ( an anagram of Nikola Tesla ) made a
similar device and tested it to show that it did everything Steorn's was
claimed to do (actually more so) and yet was not overunity when properly
tested and when it's performance was correctly measured.

I would love to do the same for Rossi's device but I don't currently have
access to a machining shop nor do I have the time and all the requisite
skills.  It could be contracted out but it's more trouble than I am willing
to go to.

Maybe some of the nice folks who are trying to duplicate the E-cat and make
their own could try this idea -- make one as close to Rossi's design as
possible, use the electrical heaters as the only power source, and see if
you can recreate the postulated errors in heat of vaporization enthalpy
measurement that Rossi has been accused of committingIf that worked,
the next step would be to show how the correct result can be obtained,
perhaps with a properly constructed and installed heat exchanger with good
T out measurement in the coolant stream, with an all liquid coolant
circuit, or with sparging of the steam.  You'd think both skeptics and
believers would like to see such experiments done but so far, it seems,
nobody has talked about that method -- or I missed that conversation.

The computer modelling is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't seem to
resolve the many issues that would be taken care of by a good physical
simulation of Rossi's actual devices but without LENR heat sources inside.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

I believe you should do a much simpler test. As I said, an experiment is
best when reduced to minimum number of components. That is, when you test
the claim to its essence. You keep it clean. Test one thing at a time, in
isolation, rather than the entire range of behavior the eCat exhibits.
There is a company on Airport Road near my office where they test scrapped
airplane wings for stress-related failure. As you can imagine, they do not
test an entire wing, and they do not fly an airplane with sensors attached.
They cut out a sample of a wing and put it in a mechanical press to flex it
repeatedly, to speed up the process. Along the same lines you should not
undertake to simulate the entire eCat, but rather the one aspect of it that
makes or breaks the claim.

In this case you should do what I described earlier:

Bring ~30 L of water to boil in a large pot

Insulate the pot, but not much, so that the outer layer is still too hot to
touch (60 to 80 deg C).

Check the temperature periodically for 4 hours and see whether it remains
at boiling temperature, or cools down.

That may sound silly, but I am 100% serious. Any skeptic who sincerely
believes the claim may be mistaken should be willing to do this test. Not
just willing but *anxious* to do this test. Frankly, if anyone is being
silly it is the skeptics who are unwilling to try this, or to deal with the
fact that this is a direct simulation of eCat behavior. You can argue about
some details of what the eCat does or does not do, but this is one thing it
*unquestionably* does. No one has challenged that. It has nothing to do
with instruments. The observers all agree the vessel surface remained too
hot to touch. Lewan confirmed it with a thermocouple. They later dumped the
water out and saw it was still steaming hot. It would be absurd to argue
they are wrong, and the vessel actually cooled down to room temperature.

That is the most important claim, in its essential form. The rest is either
unimportant detail, or it only strengthens the claim. The latter includes,
for example, the fact that during the 4 hours all of the water in the
reactor vessel was replaced with cold water twice. Some people doubt that,
although it is unquestionably true that some water was flowing into the
vessel. Otherwise the vessel would have been empty at the end, and people
observed that it was full. However, you can ignore that, not replace the
water, and simply look at the heat lost from 30 L container.

You can use a cylindrical pot even though that has less surface area than
Rossi's square reactor.

This is a much easier test than making a copy of the reactor. This is as
definitive and irrefutable as a test with a copy would be. This test gets
to the point, without confusing the issue, and without getting into debates
about trivial and irrelevant matters such as the placement of the cooling
loop outlet thermocouple. You can -- and you should -- ignore the cooling
loop for the purposes of this test. The cooling loop is secondary evidence;
the claim stands or fails based on this primary, first-principle
observation.

There is no benefit to adding in the complexity of Rossi's electric heaters
and reactor geometry. This would only confuse the issue, and distract
you. They have no effect on the Stefan-Boltzman law. Adding the heat
initially with a gas fire produces the same results as adding it with an
electric heater.

The only way this may not model the reactor in all important respects would
be if there is a hidden source of chemical or electric energy. There is
absolute no evidence for that. To put it another way, if there is a hidden
source, it is hidden so well no expert has seen any trace of it, and there
no suggestions anywhere as to how you might simulate it; i.e. how you might
hide wires large enough to keep a 30 L pot boiling for 4 hours.  So you
might as well not try to simulate a hidden source.

(There are a few crackpot ideas about putting bricks heated to 3000 deg C
into the reactor beforehand. There is no way that could work, and it would
be dangerous, so do not try it.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-10 Thread Robert Leguillon

Adding the heat initially with a gas fire produces the same results as adding 
it with an electric heater.

Jed, 
Do you really not understand the difference, here?  Using an external gas heat 
vs. An internal heater is absolutely crucial to the argument of stored heat.  
Your statement really makes it seem that you do not understand the fundamental 
basis of the claims.

Using an external flame would boil water and raise the core to the same 
temperature as the water. Subsequently, taking it off of the burner would cause 
a drop from 100C.

Conversely, an internal heater would necessarily be more than 100C. If there 
were a slow thermal transfer between the core and the water, as is demonstrated 
by the input power prior to the onset of boiling, the core could elevate to 
much higher temperatures, and continue releasing that stored heat, slowly 
decreasing temperature after power is removed. A 500C core and 300C core both 
produce ~100C water and some amount of steam. So, it would appear that it's 
stable until eventually the core temperature would need to be re-elevated to 
maintain boiling. 
The reason firebrick was mentioned, was merely as a possible heat medium, that 
would fit in the inner container and store sufficient heat during the warm up 
phase, and would release it slowly, maintaining minimal boiling.

The bad calorimetry needs to be tested, because it could explain away the large 
power claims, which reduces the magnitude of claims into a window where stored 
heat is sufficient to explain the observations.

I am not making any statement on the likelihood of fraud, but it honestly seems 
that you do not comprehend the stored heat argument.

Before you try to grab one sentence and ignore everything else, do you 
understand why your statement is wrong?

Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe you should do a much simpler test. As I said, an experiment is
best when reduced to minimum number of components. That is, when you test
the claim to its essence. You keep it clean. Test one thing at a time, in
isolation, rather than the entire range of behavior the eCat exhibits.
There is a company on Airport Road near my office where they test scrapped
airplane wings for stress-related failure. As you can imagine, they do not
test an entire wing, and they do not fly an airplane with sensors attached.
They cut out a sample of a wing and put it in a mechanical press to flex it
repeatedly, to speed up the process. Along the same lines you should not
undertake to simulate the entire eCat, but rather the one aspect of it that
makes or breaks the claim.

In this case you should do what I described earlier:

Bring ~30 L of water to boil in a large pot

Insulate the pot, but not much, so that the outer layer is still too hot to
touch (60 to 80 deg C).

Check the temperature periodically for 4 hours and see whether it remains
at boiling temperature, or cools down.

That may sound silly, but I am 100% serious. Any skeptic who sincerely
believes the claim may be mistaken should be willing to do this test. Not
just willing but *anxious* to do this test. Frankly, if anyone is being
silly it is the skeptics who are unwilling to try this, or to deal with the
fact that this is a direct simulation of eCat behavior. You can argue about
some details of what the eCat does or does not do, but this is one thing it
*unquestionably* does. No one has challenged that. It has nothing to do
with instruments. The observers all agree the vessel surface remained too
hot to touch. Lewan confirmed it with a thermocouple. They later dumped the
water out and saw it was still steaming hot. It would be absurd to argue
they are wrong, and the vessel actually cooled down to room temperature.

That is the most important claim, in its essential form. The rest is either
unimportant detail, or it only strengthens the claim. The latter includes,
for example, the fact that during the 4 hours all of the water in the
reactor vessel was replaced with cold water twice. Some people doubt that,
although it is unquestionably true that some water was flowing into the
vessel. Otherwise the vessel would have been empty at the end, and people
observed that it was full. However, you can ignore that, not replace the
water, and simply look at the heat lost from 30 L container.

You can use a cylindrical pot even though that has less surface area than
Rossi's square reactor.

This is a much easier test than making a copy of the reactor. This is as
definitive and irrefutable as a test with a copy would be. This test gets
to the point, without confusing the issue, and without getting into debates
about trivial and irrelevant matters such as the placement of the cooling
loop outlet thermocouple. You can -- and you should -- ignore the cooling
loop for the purposes of this test. The cooling loop is secondary evidence;
the claim stands or fails based on this primary, first-principle
observation.

There is no benefit to adding in the complexity of Rossi's

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

Adding the heat initially with a gas fire produces the same results as
 adding it with an electric heater.

 Jed,
 Do you really not understand the difference, here?  Using an external gas
 heat vs. An internal heater is absolutely crucial to the argument of stored
 heat.


I was assuming that nearly all of the heat is stored in water, and that
heat stored in the core is insignificant because it is metal, and most
metals have about 10 times lower specific heat than water. I was leaving
out the core altogether. I assume that adding any kind of simulated core
will only make the thing cool down faster.

HOWEVER, if you want to do this test, and you feel the core is important,
you should simulate it. That may mean you heat it up a core separately and
then immerse it in the liquid. Or you put electric heaters into the core,
similar to the ones Rossi uses, and then heat the whole thing for a few
hours until the water boils. I am not sure what material would be a good
choice. Metal, rather than a brick.

This would not make the experiment significantly more complicated, so why
not? Go for it.



 Conversely, an internal heater would necessarily be more than 100C. If
 there were a slow thermal transfer between the core and the water, as is
 demonstrated by the input power prior to the onset of boiling, the core
 could elevate to much higher temperatures, and continue releasing that
 stored heat, slowly decreasing temperature after power is removed. A 500C
 core and 300C core both produce ~100C water and some amount of steam.


I knew that, but as I said, I figured a 500 deg C metal core would have
less thermal mass than an equivalent mass of water at 100 deg C. Even by
volume, nothing holds more heat than water, as far as I know.

It would be unrealistic to make the simulated core more than 500 deg C. I
do not think Rossi's electric heaters can make it hotter than that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

I wrote:

I was leaving out the core altogether. I assume that adding any kind of
 simulated core will only make the thing cool down faster.


By thing I mean the entire insulated vessel. The whole system. Not the
core by itself. That will cool at various different rates depending on many
factors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

I wrote:

HOWEVER, if you want to do this test, and you feel the core is important,
you should simulate it. That may mean you heat it up a core separately and
then immerse it in the liquid. . . .

This would not make the experiment significantly more complicated, so why
not? Go for it.

Whoever does the test has to decide things like this. People all have their
own ways of doing things. The important points I am trying to make are:

Do not encumber the test with irrelevant aspects of the original, such as
the external cooling loop and heat exchanger. Rossi needed that but you do
not need it for a simulation. Test only the essence of the claim. That is,
what *you think* is the essence, not what I think.

Test only the principal claim, and the core reactor, not the entire system.

Focus your test on the heat after death event. This greatly simplifies
calorimetry. Naturally if you want to heat it up initially with an internal
heater, and you should record that event. But the main focus should be on
the heat after death event. It would be much harder to simulate or separate
out the effects of heating and simultaneously triggering sporadic anomalous
heat, as occurred in the initial stages.

I see no reason to make it a square reactor, rather than an ordinary pot.

If you trust there was water flowing thorough at the rate reported by
Rossi, then replace 4 L every 15 minutes as I originally suggested:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295498.ece/BINARY/Conclusion+Ecat+Oct+6+by+Jed+Rothwell+%28pdf%29

This will make it cool to room temperature in ~40 min., the way the
original did.

Obviously there was *some* water going out, because otherwise the heat
exchanger would not have gotten hot. Nothing would have reached it. But if
you sincerely believe this flow was only a few liters per hour then don't
bother simulating it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

I wrote:

HOWEVER, if you want to do this test, and you feel the core is important,
you should simulate it. That may mean you heat it up a core separately and
then immerse it in the liquid. . . .

This would not make the experiment significantly more complicated, so why
not? Go for it.

Whoever does the test has to decide things like this. People all have
their own ways of doing things. The important points I am trying to make
are:

Test only the principal claim, and the core reactor, not the entire system.

I see no reason to make it a square reactor, rather than an ordinary pot.

If you trust there was water flowing thorough at the rate reported by
Rossi, then replace 4 L every 15 minutes as I originally suggested:

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295498.ece/BINARY/Conclusion+Ecat+Oct+6+by+Jed+Rothwell+%28pdf%29

This will make it cool to room temperature in ~40 min., the way the
original did.

Some of the issues raised by skeptics are that heat of vaporization of
steam can be used to mislead. That can only be best and most conclusively
tested by something that looks like an E-cat with a cylindrical appropriate
size core module having an internal heater and a cooling jacket having a
flowing water coolant in it and a large heater band around it. And also a
large sloppy rubber hose leading out of it into a bucket. I'd use the same
type pump and heater controller as Rossi.

For the October 6 test, I'd use exactly the same size box, a finned inner
container and an external heat exchanger -- just like Rossi did. Then you
could experiment to your heart's content with hidden heat sources, heat
storage devices including various types of bricks and molten metal which
would have to fit inside the finned container, and of course thermocouple
placement on the heat exchanger. If you don't do an exact simulation to
the best of your ability, you will simply create more obfuscation, not
less. The argument will simply shift to the ways in which your simulation
is unlike Rossi's machine -- exactly what my suggestion was intended to
avoid.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-10 Thread Colin Hercus

Hi Jed,

I think the simple test would be to put a 25kg block of lead (for big ecat
simulation) on the gas with a pan of water on top of the lead, all well
insulated. Turn on the gas and heat until the water boils. Turn off the gas
and with whole container well sealed and insulated see how long the water
boils and stays at 100C. Just be careful not to melt the lead.

Colin

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I believe you should do a much simpler test. As I said, an experiment is
 best when reduced to minimum number of components. That is, when you test
 the claim to its essence. You keep it clean. Test one thing at a time, in
 isolation, rather than the entire range of behavior the eCat exhibits.
 There is a company on Airport Road near my office where they test scrapped
 airplane wings for stress-related failure. As you can imagine, they do not
 test an entire wing, and they do not fly an airplane with sensors attached.
 They cut out a sample of a wing and put it in a mechanical press to flex it
 repeatedly, to speed up the process. Along the same lines you should not
 undertake to simulate the entire eCat, but rather the one aspect of it that
 makes or breaks the claim.

 In this case you should do what I described earlier:

 Bring ~30 L of water to boil in a large pot

 Insulate the pot, but not much, so that the outer layer is still too hot
 to touch (60 to 80 deg C).

 Check the temperature periodically for 4 hours and see whether it remains
 at boiling temperature, or cools down.

 That may sound silly, but I am 100% serious. Any skeptic who sincerely
 believes the claim may be mistaken should be willing to do this test. Not
 just willing but *anxious* to do this test. Frankly, if anyone is being
 silly it is the skeptics who are unwilling to try this, or to deal with the
 fact that this is a direct simulation of eCat behavior. You can argue about
 some details of what the eCat does or does not do, but this is one thing it
 *unquestionably* does. No one has challenged that. It has nothing to do
 with instruments. The observers all agree the vessel surface remained too
 hot to touch. Lewan confirmed it with a thermocouple. They later dumped the
 water out and saw it was still steaming hot. It would be absurd to argue
 they are wrong, and the vessel actually cooled down to room temperature.

 That is the most important claim, in its essential form. The rest is
 either unimportant detail, or it only strengthens the claim. The latter
 includes, for example, the fact that during the 4 hours all of the water in
 the reactor vessel was replaced with cold water twice. Some people doubt
 that, although it is unquestionably true that some water was flowing into
 the vessel. Otherwise the vessel would have been empty at the end, and
 people observed that it was full. However, you can ignore that, not replace
 the water, and simply look at the heat lost from 30 L container.

 You can use a cylindrical pot even though that has less surface area than
 Rossi's square reactor.

 This is a much easier test than making a copy of the reactor. This is as
 definitive and irrefutable as a test with a copy would be. This test gets
 to the point, without confusing the issue, and without getting into debates
 about trivial and irrelevant matters such as the placement of the cooling
 loop outlet thermocouple. You can -- and you should -- ignore the cooling
 loop for the purposes of this test. The cooling loop is secondary evidence;
 the claim stands or fails based on this primary, first-principle
 observation.

 There is no benefit to adding in the complexity of Rossi's electric
 heaters and reactor geometry. This would only confuse the issue, and
 distract you. They have no effect on the Stefan-Boltzman law. Adding the
 heat initially with a gas fire produces the same results as adding it with
 an electric heater.

 The only way this may not model the reactor in all important respects
 would be if there is a hidden source of chemical or electric energy. There
 is absolute no evidence for that. To put it another way, if there is a
 hidden source, it is hidden so well no expert has seen any trace of it, and
 there no suggestions anywhere as to how you might simulate it; i.e. how you
 might hide wires large enough to keep a 30 L pot boiling for 4 hours.  So
 you might as well not try to simulate a hidden source.

 (There are a few crackpot ideas about putting bricks heated to 3000 deg C
 into the reactor beforehand. There is no way that could work, and it would
 be dangerous, so do not try it.)

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-10 Thread Robert Leguillon

Jed: Now I see what you were shooting for:
You were recommending replacing the core with the same volume of water based on 
specific heat.
The reason that that was insufficient, is due the the total energy storage 
possible.Though iron has a lower volumetric heat capacity that water (3.5 Jc3/K 
vs 4.2 Jc3/K), it can store more thermal energy; it isn't limited to the 100C 
phase ceiling that the water volume would be subject to. Taking this to its 
extreme, the fixed volume would even allow a metal core to melt without 
violating the volume/weight restrictions observed in the Oct. 6th test.
I am not saying that a molten metal core is likely, only that it could fit in 
the container supplied, and produce steam at a stable temperature for some 
length of time.

From: colinher...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 04:13:31 +0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work 
without LENR?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Hi Jed,

I think the simple test would be to put a 25kg block of lead (for big ecat 
simulation) on the gas with a pan of water on top of the lead, all well 
insulated. Turn on the gas and heat until the water boils. Turn off the gas and 
with whole container well sealed and insulated see how long the water boils and 
stays at 100C. Just be careful not to melt the lead.



Colin

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


I believe you should do a much simpler test. As I said, an experiment is best 
when reduced to minimum number of components. That is, when you test the claim 
to its essence. You keep it clean. Test one thing at a time, in isolation, 
rather than the entire range of behavior the eCat exhibits. There is a company 
on Airport Road near my office where they test scrapped airplane wings for 
stress-related failure. As you can imagine, they do not test an entire wing, 
and they do not fly an airplane with sensors attached. They cut out a sample of 
a wing and put it in a mechanical press to flex it repeatedly, to speed up the 
process. Along the same lines you should not undertake to simulate the entire 
eCat, but rather the one aspect of it that makes or breaks the claim.



In this case you should do what I described earlier:
Bring ~30 L of water to boil in a large pot
Insulate the pot, but not much, so that the outer layer is still too hot to 
touch (60 to 80 deg C).



Check the temperature periodically for 4 hours and see whether it remains at 
boiling temperature, or cools down.
That may sound silly, but I am 100% serious. Any skeptic who sincerely believes 
the claim may be mistaken should be willing to do this test. Not just willing 
but anxious to do this test. Frankly, if anyone is being silly it is the 
skeptics who are unwilling to try this, or to deal with the fact that this is a 
direct simulation of eCat behavior. You can argue about some details of what 
the eCat does or does not do, but this is one thing it unquestionably does. No 
one has challenged that. It has nothing to do with instruments. The observers 
all agree the vessel surface remained too hot to touch. Lewan confirmed it with 
a thermocouple. They later dumped the water out and saw it was still steaming 
hot. It would be absurd to argue they are wrong, and the vessel actually cooled 
down to room temperature.



That is the most important claim, in its essential form. The rest is either 
unimportant detail, or it only strengthens the claim. The latter includes, for 
example, the fact that during the 4 hours all of the water in the reactor 
vessel was replaced with cold water twice. Some people doubt that, although it 
is unquestionably true that some water was flowing into the vessel. Otherwise 
the vessel would have been empty at the end, and people observed that it was 
full. However, you can ignore that, not replace the water, and simply look at 
the heat lost from 30 L container.



You can use a cylindrical pot even though that has less surface area than 
Rossi's square reactor.
This is a much easier test than making a copy of the reactor. This is as 
definitive and irrefutable as a test with a copy would be. This test gets to 
the point, without confusing the issue, and without getting into debates about 
trivial and irrelevant matters such as the placement of the cooling loop outlet 
thermocouple. You can -- and you should -- ignore the cooling loop for the 
purposes of this test. The cooling loop is secondary evidence; the claim stands 
or fails based on this primary, first-principle observation.



There is no benefit to adding in the complexity of Rossi's electric heaters and 
reactor geometry. This would only confuse the issue, and distract you. They 
have no effect on the Stefan-Boltzman law. Adding the heat initially with a gas 
fire produces the same results as adding it with an electric heater.



The only way this may not model the reactor in all important respects would be 
if there is a hidden source of chemical or electric energy.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?


Am 10.12.2011 17:51, schrieb Mary Yugo:

I wish someone had taken the considerable trouble to duplicate Rossi's
small E-cat and Ottoman (Oct 6) experiments.  By this, I mean to make
devices as similar as possible as Rossi's and to show that the experimental
results KE and Lewan got could be obtained by mismeasurement rather than
LENR heat production.

Possibly it is sufficient to test the heat exchanger.

For condensation applications the heatexchanger must be mounted vertical.
If mounted horicontal the heat exchanger would fill up with condensate 
and the active crossectional area will be reduced.

If there was not much steam, it doesnt matter.

It could be sufficient to test, if this heatexchanger can handle the 
claimed amount of steam in horicontal position.

I doubt it.

citation from installation manual 1st page:

http://www.swep.net/fileview.**php?file=1300709490http://www.swep.net/fileview.php?file=1300709490 



Condensers

The refrigerant (gas) should be
connected to the upper left connection,
F1, and the condensate to
the lower left connection, F3. The
water/brine circuit inlet should be
connected to the lower right connection,
F4, and the outlet to the
upper right connection, F2.

end citation

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


 By this, I mean to make
 devices as similar as possible as Rossi's and to show that the
 experimental
 results KE and Lewan got could be obtained by mismeasurement rather than
 LENR heat production.

 Possibly it is sufficient to test the heat exchanger.


No, that is not sufficient. Even if you can prove the heat exchanger is
flawed and the thermocouple is positioned incorrectly, that is an
unimportant side issue. If you wish to disprove these claims, you must
demonstrate by conventional means that you can keep a reactor of this size
at boiling temperatures for 4 hours, while it remains too hot to touch.

Skeptics should confront the facts head on, instead of raising
petty objections to unimportant aspects of the test. If you seriously
believe these results are in error, or that this can done with conventional
stored energy or some sort of hidden chemical device, prove it. You claim
violates so many established laws of physics, you will win the Nobel prize.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?


Am 11.12.2011 00:04, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de  wrote:


By this, I mean to make

devices as similar as possible as Rossi's and to show that the
experimental
results KE and Lewan got could be obtained by mismeasurement rather than
LENR heat production.


Possibly it is sufficient to test the heat exchanger.


No, that is not sufficient. Even if you can prove the heat exchanger is
flawed and the thermocouple is positioned incorrectly, that is an
unimportant side issue.

It depends on the result of the test.
If it turns out, the pressure rises too high in horizontal position, 
then this is a definitive proof.
If it turns out, the claimed delta_t cannot been reached in horizontal 
position, then this is a definitive proof.


If it turns out, the heatexchanger works as claimed in horizontal 
position then the claims are hardened.



  If you wish to disprove these claims, you must
demonstrate by conventional means that you can keep a reactor of this size
at boiling temperatures for 4 hours, while it remains too hot to touch.

Skeptics should confront the facts head on, instead of raising
petty objections to unimportant aspects of the test.

Thats what I do.

  If you seriously
believe these results are in error,



or that this can done with conventional
stored energy or some sort of hidden chemical device, prove it. You claim
violates so many established laws of physics, you will win the Nobel prize.
You should know, I have said it can be done with a secret wireless 
heater switch and/or with a vacuum sucking out water.
Please dont lay words onto my tongue, that I never said. I know that 
hidden sources are improbable. These are too easy to detect in a serious 
verification.
I dont think, Rossi is so stupid to do primitive and common tricks, that 
every dummy would suspect first.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:


 You should know, I have said it can be done with a secret wireless heater
 switch and/or with a vacuum sucking out water.


I suggest you prove that. Build something with wires large enough to
produce this much heat yet which remain invisible when people open the
reactor or pick it up from the table and put it on a scale. Trigger these
wires with your wireless heater switch.

Make a reactor remain too hot to touch for 4 hours by using a vacuum to
suck out the water.

Do this, and I will believe you are right.

Do not waste your time trying to show that trivial aspects of this claim
might be wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?


Am 11.12.2011 00:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de  wrote:



You should know, I have said it can be done with a secret wireless heater
switch and/or with a vacuum sucking out water.


I suggest you prove that. Build something with wires large enough to
produce this much heat yet which remain invisible when people open the
reactor or pick it up from the table and put it on a scale. Trigger these
wires with your wireless heater switch.

Make a reactor remain too hot to touch for 4 hours by using a vacuum to
suck out the water.
Easy. I use a hidden wireless heater switch and activate it, when nobody 
looks.
The vacuum reduces the energy needed and the big heat intertia of the 
device smoothes the variations in boiling.

Do this, and I will believe you are right.

I will not do it. I dont have money, space and time.
I could do it from the technical point of view. But not from the 
psychological point of view.

Do not waste your time trying to show that trivial aspects of this claim
might be wrong.
If you think, thermoelement placements and heatexchanger efficiency are 
trivial aspects then you are wrong.

This are central aspects, this is where the final output is measured.
If you dont understand this, why do you write books about cold fusion?

Sometime ago I wanted to buy a book about cold fusion, but when I 
noticed, you wrote the foreword, I preferred not to buy it.
Your arguments are impossible and you delete my arguments and the you 
put other words into my mouth and disprove them.

This is so demagogic and inacceptable.

Of course, if we see the e-cat as an unimportant scam out of many 
others, then everything is important.
Without Levi  Kullander  Essen  Focardi, Rossi where a nobody. He 
would be ignored.

I find Rossi funny in a refreshing way.
The real mischief this are the scientists and journalists that support 
him and make money from this.

These should all be fired and jailed.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

This is silly. There was a clamp on amp meter on the mains cord and on 
the heater wires going into the E-Cat. Power consumption was recorded 
during the self power run. Refer to the Higgins data. Are you suggesting 
that during the self powering period NONE of the MANY people in the room 
would have failed to see the clamp on amp meter showing high levels of 
power consumption? Also present was the LENR guy from SPAWAR. There is 
no way power could have been supplied to the E-Cat heaters without 
someone seeing the amps meter increase. Just not possible.



On 12/11/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:

Am 11.12.2011 00:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de  wrote:


You should know, I have said it can be done with a secret wireless 
heater

switch and/or with a vacuum sucking out water.


I suggest you prove that. Build something with wires large enough to
produce this much heat yet which remain invisible when people open the
reactor or pick it up from the table and put it on a scale. Trigger 
these

wires with your wireless heater switch.

Make a reactor remain too hot to touch for 4 hours by using a vacuum to
suck out the water.
Easy. I use a hidden wireless heater switch and activate it, when 
nobody looks.
The vacuum reduces the energy needed and the big heat intertia of the 
device smoothes the variations in boiling.

Do this, and I will believe you are right.

I will not do it. I dont have money, space and time.
I could do it from the technical point of view. But not from the 
psychological point of view.

Do not waste your time trying to show that trivial aspects of this claim
might be wrong.
If you think, thermoelement placements and heatexchanger efficiency 
are trivial aspects then you are wrong.

This are central aspects, this is where the final output is measured.
If you dont understand this, why do you write books about cold fusion?

Sometime ago I wanted to buy a book about cold fusion, but when I 
noticed, you wrote the foreword, I preferred not to buy it.
Your arguments are impossible and you delete my arguments and the you 
put other words into my mouth and disprove them.

This is so demagogic and inacceptable.

Of course, if we see the e-cat as an unimportant scam out of many 
others, then everything is important.
Without Levi  Kullander  Essen  Focardi, Rossi where a nobody. He 
would be ignored.

I find Rossi funny in a refreshing way.
The real mischief this are the scientists and journalists that support 
him and make money from this.

These should all be fired and jailed.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?


Am 11.12.2011 01:46, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat:
This is silly. There was a clamp on amp meter on the mains cord and on 
the heater wires going into the E-Cat. Power consumption was recorded 
during the self power run. Refer to the Higgins data. Are you 
suggesting that during the self powering period NONE of the MANY 
people in the room would have failed to see the clamp on amp meter 
showing high levels of power consumption? Also present was the LENR 
guy from SPAWAR. There is no way power could have been supplied to the 
E-Cat heaters without someone seeing the amps meter increase. Just not 
possible.



Look here: http://youtu.be/NNCuLAZKvL4
I dont see a meter that seems to be capable to record data without a 
realtime computer connection.
I dont remember if any amperage recording instruments where mentioned in 
the report.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-10 Thread David Roberson


Peter, don't you think your statement is a little extreme?  I suspect you 
should have more evidence before you condemn everyone who believes in this 
field?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2011 7:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work 
without LENR?


Am 11.12.2011 00:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
 Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de  wrote:
...snip...Of course, if we see the e-cat as an unimportant scam out of many 
thers, then everything is important.
ithout Levi  Kullander  Essen  Focardi, Rossi where a nobody. He 
ould be ignored.
 find Rossi funny in a refreshing way.
he real mischief this are the scientists and journalists that support 
im and make money from this.
hese should all be fired and jailed.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?


Am 11.12.2011 01:57, schrieb David Roberson:

Peter, don't you think your statement is a little extreme?  I suspect you 
should have more evidence before you condemn everyone who believes in this 
field?
Now, I am not a fanatic believer, but often I tend to believe, it should 
be possible.
I dont condemn everybody, for example not Brian Josephson. He had 
recommended some books to me, some time ago, we had some nice 
information exchange.


But seeing people supporting an obvious testable scam or justifying 
obvious junk chaos measurements with demagogic argumentations does 
really hurt my confidence into this field.

I begin to understand why it is ignored by mainstream.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-lvortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2011 7:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work 
without LENR?


Am 11.12.2011 00:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
  Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de   wrote:
...snip...Of course, if we see the e-cat as an unimportant scam out of many
thers, then everything is important.
ithout Levi  Kullander  Essen  Focardi, Rossi where a nobody. He
ould be ignored.
  find Rossi funny in a refreshing way.
he real mischief this are the scientists and journalists that support
im and make money from this.
hese should all be fired and jailed.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

You can clearly see in the video there were a volt meter and amp meter 
at the wall plug measuring the energy delivered to the Blue Box and 
another set between the Blue Box and the E-Cat. According to the Higgins 
data, power input was measured many times during the self sustain mode. 
Are you suggesting ALL the people in the room during the most 
interesting time, the self sustain mode did not glance at all 4 meters? 
There is no way Rossi could have faked the input power. Too many people 
and sets of eyes there to check the 4 meters. They were not restricted 
in access to the E-Cat. Many went up and felt the water boiling. If 
think they did not also glance at the 4 sets of meters as well? Come on 
Peter, they were ALL skeptical. They came to see the power output versus 
the power input. They felt the E-Cat boiling water and they checked the 
openly visible meters to make sure there was no power applied to the 
E-Cat. They knew they were watching history in the making. Checking 
those 4 sets of meters with their eyes and feeling the water boiling 
inside the E-Cat was what they did to eliminate their skepticism. They 
knew that to continue boiling water, with no reduction in temperature 
for 4.5 hours and to SEE with their own eyes that there was no power 
being applied, they were seeing the dawn of a new age. Fool a few? 
Maybe? Fool everybody in the room? No way. You think he fooled Paul 
Swanson from SPAWAR?


The same thing applies to the earlier Kullander test / demo. Those guys 
were not fools. They would have been looking for any sign of fraud. They 
found none. In the end, Rossi removed all the insulation so they could 
see there was nothing but a small door knob sized reactor that produced 
around 24 kWs of heat and peaked at 130 kWs.



On 12/11/2011 11:24 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:

Am 11.12.2011 01:46, schrieb Aussie Guy E-Cat:
This is silly. There was a clamp on amp meter on the mains cord and 
on the heater wires going into the E-Cat. Power consumption was 
recorded during the self power run. Refer to the Higgins data. Are 
you suggesting that during the self powering period NONE of the MANY 
people in the room would have failed to see the clamp on amp meter 
showing high levels of power consumption? Also present was the LENR 
guy from SPAWAR. There is no way power could have been supplied to 
the E-Cat heaters without someone seeing the amps meter increase. 
Just not possible.



Look here: http://youtu.be/NNCuLAZKvL4
I dont see a meter that seems to be capable to record data without a 
realtime computer connection.
I dont remember if any amperage recording instruments where mentioned 
in the report.


Peter

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:


 The same thing applies to the earlier Kullander test / demo. Those guys
 were not fools. They would have been looking for any sign of fraud. They
 found none. In the end, Rossi removed all the insulation so they could see
 there was nothing but a small door knob sized reactor that produced around
 24 kWs of heat and peaked at 130 kWs.


Which test was that?  Levi's?  The one for which Levi claims the dog ate
his homework?

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote:

 You can clearly see in the video there were a volt meter and amp meter at
 the wall plug measuring the energy delivered to the Blue Box and another
 set between the Blue Box and the E-Cat. According to the Higgins data,
 power input was measured many times during the self sustain mode. Are you
 suggesting ALL the people in the room during the most interesting time, the
 self sustain mode did not glance at all 4 meters? There is no way Rossi
 could have faked the input power. Too many people and sets of eyes there to
 check the 4 meters.


Someone thought of yet another nifty way to cheat with the clamp-on
ammeter.  There has been some discussion about the input power
measurements of Rossi's system. I would like to take this opportunity to
point out that clampon meters of the kind used by Rossi, and even TK in his
EKitty replications . these meters have a hold button which causes
the indicated reading to remain at whatever value it was when the button
was pressed. If the power is off and the meter's hold button is pressed,
the reading will remain at zero while the power is increased. It's easy to
miss the indication that the reading is frozen.  by Alsetalokin, here:
http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2212page=655
-- sign on and password (easy to get) required.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

They used a WATTS UP Pro Es power meter and recorded input power every 8
second via a USB port to the PC:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Levi,%20Bianchini%20and%20Villa%20Reports.pdf
As for the hold button, you think that NONE of these people do not know
that or NONE would find it strange that the LSD did not go up and down 1
or 2 numbers between readings? Have you ever watched a digital meter in
operation? If you had you would never have made the HOLD button
suggestion. When you engage HOLD, there is an indicator on the screen
that shows HOLD has been engaged and the reading NEVER changes. Your
theory would only work if they ALL were fools and incompetents, which
they were not.

On 12/11/2011 4:09 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:

You can clearly see in the video there were a volt meter and amp
meter at the wall plug measuring the energy delivered to the Blue
Box and another set between the Blue Box and the E-Cat. According
to the Higgins data, power input was measured many times during
the self sustain mode. Are you suggesting ALL the people in the
room during the most interesting time, the self sustain mode did
not glance at all 4 meters? There is no way Rossi could have faked
the input power. Too many people and sets of eyes there to check
the 4 meters.

Someone thought of yet another nifty way to cheat with the clamp-on
ammeter. There has been some discussion about the input power
measurements of Rossi's system. I would like to take this opportunity
to point out that clampon meters of the kind used by Rossi, and even
TK in his EKitty replications . these meters have a hold button
which causes the indicated reading to remain at whatever value it was
when the button was pressed. If the power is off and the meter's hold
button is pressed, the reading will remain at zero while the power is
increased. It's easy to miss the indication that the reading is
frozen. by Alsetalokin, here:
http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2212page=655 http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2212page=655
-- sign on and password (easy to get) required.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

2011-12-10 Thread Terry Blanton

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
  I can't access that paper at the moment -- the site
 returns an account suspended error.

He just needs to buy bytes.  But Jed posted the Levi report here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf

T

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
   I can't access that paper at the moment -- the site
  returns an account suspended error.

 He just needs to buy bytes.  But Jed posted the Levi report here:

 http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf


Thanks.  That's one of the many experiments which assumes the water was
completely evaporated.  There's no evidence whatever that it was.  A small
portion of liquid water would totally invalidate the result.  It's typical
of a run which has been widely and properly criticized.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?

You need to watch and read the subtitles in this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4JUJhkpc3I especially when Celani starts
talking around 23:20. He states he observed short Gamma bursts as the
reactor was starting up and as it shut down. Also claimed a 50% non
steady state increase in background Gamma radiation which he believed
was not natural or from a hidden Gamma source. Celani was the guy who
tried to get a spectrum and was stopped by Rossi. He also brought his
own battery powered equipment as he is no fool.

On 12/11/2011 4:46 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:

They used a WATTS UP Pro Es power meter and recorded input power
every 8 second via a USB port to the PC:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Levi,%20Bianchini%20and%20Villa%20Reports.pdf
As for the hold button, you think that NONE of these people do not
know that or NONE would find it strange that the LSD did not go up
and down 1 or 2 numbers between readings? Have you ever watched a
digital meter in operation? If you had you would never have made
the HOLD button suggestion. When you engage HOLD, there is an
indicator on the screen that shows HOLD has been engaged and the
reading NEVER changes. Your theory would only work if they ALL
were fools and incompetents, which they were not.

Conveniently, one never knows when you describe an experiment, which
experiment it was. I can't access that paper at the moment -- the
site returns an account suspended error. It's probably just
weekend syndrome (nobody around the server or ISP who knows anything
and all the people who do are off duty). Watch Rossi claim, as
usual, that he's been hacked and his IT staff is feverishly working on
the problem to defend him against the snakes.

Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work without LENR?