RE: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
Abd wrote: You are, however, assuming that Galantini could tell that the chimney had no liquid water in it at the level of the thermometer, because he withdrew the probe and observed that it was dry. [deleted sentence] Has it occurred to you that steam doesn't come out of the thermometer port when the thermometer is removed? Do you realize what this is telling us about the internal details there? This port must be designed to seal, I'm suspecting. It will wipe off the thermometer when it is removed. Even if it did not do this, the thermometer is above boiling, and is designed not to hold water, I suspect, the water will not remain on it, it will be at most a very thin film and it will immediately vaporize when removed, before the hot thermometer can cool. That might be valid reasoning IF that is the sensor that Galantini was referring to, HOWEVER, I doubt it was... 1) In Galantini's report, it is clear that he was looking at several different sensors. 2) I seriously doubt that the RH sensor would physically fit in the opening where the outlet temperature sensor is located. 3) Thus, you are very likely mistaken when you state that he is removing the temperature sensor to determine if it is dry. However, he would NEED to check for condensation on the RH sensor, as I did when testing my RH sensor at home... This also verifies that the water level in the chimney has not risen. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THE FOLLOWING: Did Galantini remove the outlet hose in order to make the RH measurements? (from which he gets the g/m^3 measurement for mass of evaporated water). If not, then where did he insert the RH probe? -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
Mark Iverson wrote: 1) In Galantini's report, it is clear that he was looking at several different sensors. 2) I seriously doubt that the RH sensor would physically fit in the opening where the outlet temperature sensor is located. It fits in a different port. You can see it in some of the photos. 3) Thus, you are very likely mistaken when you state that he is removing the temperature sensor to determine if it is dry. He said he did this. Abd thinks removing it would wipe it dry, but the probes I have seen are tapered, with the plug that seals it shut being the widest part, so I do not think this would be a problem. Did Galantini remove the outlet hose in order to make the RH measurements? No, he fit the probe into a port in the hose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
At 10:04 AM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Essentially, depending on the thermometer being wet to inform the observer of the lack of water is foolish. No, it isn't. Galantini knows what he is doing. The probe would be wet because these probes are tapered. The plug that seals it is wider than the probe itself. Great. What happens when the probe is removed? Does steam spray out? Jed, you have reliable information about the flowing water test? How do you know whether he left it alone or not? I don't know if it is reliable or not, but here is what they told me. It lasted 18-hours, which is most of a day. They did not babysit it the entire time. They went home, leaving a video camera to watch the instruments overnight. I understand the video was on the water meter. The rest could be recorded with the computer, I'd think. Elsewhere you wrote: Jed, if you could not see the boiling, how could you judge the level? By the sound and temperature. You can't tell the level from the temperature, until the water really runs out. Sure, you might become familiar with the sound, but how? We become familiar when we have an observation to match. I.e., we see the level, we hear the sound. Rossi would only have the sound. Sure, you can speculate that he did this or that, so he knew. Maybe he did. But, Jed, this was to be a demonstration to show the thing. What did he show? I can estimate the water level in my miniature steam engine boiler by similar means. It has a window but when the water level is high or low you cannot see it. An experienced cook can judge the water level in a pot by sound, for example with a pot of vegetables being steamed, with just a little water at the bottom. Granted, this is a complicated way of doing things. The Defalion reactors reportedly have a primary cooling loop with glycol or some other liquid with a high boiling point. Water going into the secondary loop in the heat exchanger boils. Yes. I want to remind everyone that I do *not* have a belief that there is no excess heat in the Rossi device. I've come to a conclusion that he has exaggerated and possibly sometimes falsified his results, which might relate to unreliability, which is a serious problem. I simply have concluded that, for various reasons, the demonstrations and claims are not convincing. They could possibly be made convincing.
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
At 10:38 AM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mark Iverson wrote: 1) In Galantini's report, it is clear that he was looking at several different sensors. 2) I seriously doubt that the RH sensor would physically fit in the opening where the outlet temperature sensor is located. It fits in a different port. You can see it in some of the photos. 3) Thus, you are very likely mistaken when you state that he is removing the temperature sensor to determine if it is dry. He said he did this. Abd thinks removing it would wipe it dry, but the probes I have seen are tapered, with the plug that seals it shut being the widest part, so I do not think this would be a problem. He didn't say which probe he used. Did Galantini remove the outlet hose in order to make the RH measurements? No, he fit the probe into a port in the hose. In the hose? You sure? In the hose, if there is overflow water, it would be atomized, my theory. There would be, near the E-cat, no coagulated liquid water, even if steam qualtiy is quite low, perhaps as low as 5%.
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
2011/8/9 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Since Rossi was able to keep the thing from overflowing when Galantini observed the tests, why do you think he was unable to do this when Krivit was watching the test? When Galantini observed the test, they had large version of E-Cat that can store large quantities, perhaps several liters of water, before it starts overflowing. This also means that ictu oculi is very unreliable way to make reliable confirmation. And as we already knew, Galantini did not measure E-Cat's internal pressure, but he measured only the room pressure. It is obvious that Krivit's E-Cat was overflowing, if there was 7 kg/h flow rate, because if all water would evaporate, temperature would be more than 101°C due to steam pressure. But even more probable it is that actual water inflow rate was something like 2 kg/h or even less. Little pincer in the inlet hose can reduce the inflow rate, as pump operates only in 300 kilopascal pressure. [speculation] My interpretation for the June E-Cat is that Rossi did not show Krivit a working E-Cat, but only version where was only electric heater active(!). After all many people have requested a control experiment, where E-Cat runs with electricity only(!). And if we look Rossi's presentation when he did calculations he treated Krivit's audience like he would assume that Krivit was doing journalism to some tabloid news paper(!). So I would think that Rossi has just twisted sense of humor(!). Perhaps he also wanted to discredit himself, in order to be bothered by press so much. [/speculation] - Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: When Galantini observed the test, they had large version of E-Cat that can store large quantities, perhaps several liters of water, before it starts overflowing. When I am cooking, I can stop a pot from boiling dry whether it is large or small. It is not difficult at all. This also means that ictu oculi is very unreliable way to make reliable confirmation. He withdrew the probe and looked at it. It was dry. It would wet if there was water flowing through the machine. This is very reliable; anyone can see if an object is wet or dry. [speculation] My interpretation for the June E-Cat is that Rossi did not show Krivit a working E-Cat, but only version where was only electric heater active(!). I do not think there is any way he could have fooled Levi et al. with a fake machine. They worked with it for a month. Assuming the machine works, why would he bother to construct a fake machine? What would be the point? What would be Rossi's motive? Either all of the demonstrations are fake, or they are likely all real. Not only is there no conceivable advantage to showing a fake one, it could easily cause problems. Krivit or some other observer might detect a fake machine, after all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: And if we look Rossi's presentation when he did calculations he treated Krivit's audience like he would assume that Krivit was doing journalism to some tabloid news paper(!). That is nonsense. The calculations were perfectly correct. They were straight from any chemistry or physics textbook. There was nothing odd about them. They were not simplified, if that is what you mean. I do not know why you put the word calculations in quotes, as if this is somehow incorrect. You could include more terms to compute the heat balance with more precision, but the method Rossi used was a good first approximation. There has been a lot of speculation here that you have to include a measurement to ensure the steam is dry, but according to every expert and every textbook, that is incorrect. No such term is needed; it is safe to assume no more than 10% wetness. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
2011/8/9 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: This also means that ictu oculi is very unreliable way to make reliable confirmation. He withdrew the probe and looked at it. It was dry. It would wet if there was water flowing through the machine. This is very reliable; anyone can see if an object is wet or dry. I guess, you missed my point. When Galantini observed ictu oculi, the E-Cat was not yet overflowing, because it may take several tens of minutes if not hours before water level rises enough to start overflowing, depending what fraction of inflow water is vaporized. Therefore ictu oculi is not reliable method in 45 min demonstration. But it needs other supporting evidence. And we have absolutely none. This does not mean that it supports that E-Cat is a fake. No, it only means that ictu oculi is scientifically irrelevant observation here, and it tells next to nothing what fraction of water was vaporized. [speculation] My interpretation for the June E-Cat is that Rossi did not show Krivit a working E-Cat, but only version where was only electric heater active(!). Assuming the machine works, why would he bother to construct a fake machine? It is not a fake machine, but normal E-Cat turned off. Perhaps Rossi just did not want to go all the efforts to set up working E-Cat just for a 15 min demonstration for a journalist. Would you? In specially, if you have doubts that particular journalist is a snake? However this was not the case with Mats Lewan, whose E-Cat worked as it should. And it produced around 2kW excess heat. What would be Rossi's motive? Not only is there no conceivable advantage to showing a fake one, it could easily cause problems. Krivit or some other observer might detect a fake machine, after all. Thats the point of this speculation. Rossi wanted to discredit himself! Because he set up a dummy demonstration for very critical observer. And for sure, Rossi has followed more than 22 years cold fusion research, he knew everything how scientifically rigorous Steven is, and Rossi was absolutely sure that Krivit will rise huge complaint about the claims. But here we can only guess the real motive for Rossi. The calculations were perfectly correct. Point was how the calculations were presented. Correctness here is irrelevant not least, because they were based on various non-measured assumptions such as that the voltage was assumed to be 220V (although it probably was more close to 235V). - Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
Jouni Valkonen wrote: I guess, you missed my point. When Galantini observed ictu oculi, the E-Cat was not yet overflowing, because it may take several tens of minutes if not hours before water level rises enough to start overflowing . . Ah. I see what you mean. However, he says he checked several times. So we can be sure that during the times he did check, it was not overflowing. It was also producing excess heat during those times. So if it produces real excess heat when it is not overflowing, there is no reason to think it would not produce heat even if it did, later, overflow, or during a flowing water test. I do not think it overflows, but even if it does, that does not preclude real heat. I suppose it would reduce the amount of heat, as Abd says. It would also prevent steam from coming out of the end of the hose, as Storms says. Therefore I doubt it is happening. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
2011/8/9 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I do not think it overflows, but even if it does, that does not preclude real heat. I suppose it would reduce the amount of heat, as Abd says. It would also prevent steam from coming out of the end of the hose, as Storms says. Therefore I doubt it is happening. It depends on the ratio of vaporized steam. As I have guessed that rational ratio for steam and hot water is around 60-80%. With this vaporization rate, it may take up to two hours before E-Cat is starting to overflow. Anyways, I see that it is absolutely impossible for Rossi to control anomalous cold fusion reaction so that it would match exactly with the water inflow rate, because I think that even 5% variation in heat output would cause drastic change of steam temperature, if E-Cat would produce 100% quality steam. But core must always be completely filled with liquid water, and if this is the case, steam temperature is always at the local boiling point. This means that water inflow rate must be higher than average steaming power of E-Cat. There is just absolutely no way to overcome this issue. The heating element in water boiler must always be filled with water, and because water inflow rate is fixed, this means that it must be adjusted beforehand at the level that is more than average steaming power. Therefore we must use different means to deduce the real heat output, and as I have suggested, assuming large amounts of steam to be cause for over pressure inside E-Cat is the most sound assumption, and it may lead reliable calculations, because temperature measurement is accurate. - Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Anyways, I see that it is absolutely impossible for Rossi to control anomalous cold fusion reaction so that it would match exactly with the water inflow rate, because I think that even 5% variation in heat output would cause drastic change of steam temperature . . . No, it would just reduce or increase the steam production by about 5%. The temperature is always the same at 1 atm. The only difficulty is knowing how full the container is. Since Rossi has been working with these things for years I expect he can tell by the sound and temperature, just as an experienced cook can estimate how much water is in a pot of boiling water. With an old-fashioned steam locomotive, the engineer would increase and decrease production of steam by opening dampers or stirring the coal. Rossi can apparently tweak the power level with analogous methods. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
Galantini's observations are of little consequence if he did not observe the very forceful flow of steam out of the E-Cat that would be necessary to correlate with numbers Rossi gives for heat production. No such observations have been made wrt the vidoes presented. In fact, the emanations look extraordinarily weak. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real? Jouni Valkonen wrote: I guess, you missed my point. When Galantini observed ictu oculi, the E-Cat was not yet overflowing, because it may take several tens of minutes if not hours before water level rises enough to start overflowing . . Ah. I see what you mean. However, he says he checked several times. So we can be sure that during the times he did check, it was not overflowing. It was also producing excess heat during those times. So if it produces real excess heat when it is not overflowing, there is no reason to think it would not produce heat even if it did, later, overflow, or during a flowing water test. I do not think it overflows, but even if it does, that does not preclude real heat. I suppose it would reduce the amount of heat, as Abd says. It would also prevent steam from coming out of the end of the hose, as Storms says. Therefore I doubt it is happening. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
At 10:01 AM 8/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: The overflowing water hypothesis does not apply to the flowing water test, and it is definitely wrong for the tests observed by Galantini. He removed the probe and observed that it was dry. So Rossi can control the water level in the cell and keep it from overflowing. That does not surprise me. I can do the same thing easily in the kitchen, at the speed the water level changes with these systems. Jed, you make hosts of assumptions and don't seem to be aware of them. But first, let's get one thing out of the way. What overflowing water hypothesis? That there is water flowing. Of course that applies to the flowing water test, it's *all overflow water.* But what you mean is that it doesn't account for the reported heat, because there is, in the 18-hour test, not enough heat to raise the temperature of the water more than about five degrees. It's a huge flow The overflow water hypothesis is merely that there is, even in the steam tests, some water overflowing that isn't vaporized. This is distinct from the wet steam issue. Steam could be quite wet from processes inside the E-cat, that's a huge unknown. I'm unconvinced by any of the expert argument on this, because experts sometimes will speculate and not tell you the nature of the speculation. They may state as a fact some assumption from their experience, which can be normally sensible, but which will break down when circumstances are different than they expect. But overflow water does require that the water level in the E-cat reaches the outlet. You are, however, assuming that Galantini could tell that the chimney had no liquid water in it at the level of the thermometer, because he withdrew the probe and observed that it was dry. Perhaps you recall that the temperature was above boiling at ambient pressure. Has it occurred to you that steam doesn't come out of the thermometer port when the thermometer is removed? Do you realize what this is telling us about the internal details there? This port must be designed to seal, I'm suspecting. It will wipe off the thermometer when it is removed. Even if it did not do this, the thermometer is above boiling, and is designed not to hold water, I suspect, the water will not remain on it, it will be at most a very thin film and it will immediately vaporize when removed, before the hot thermometer can cool. Essentially, depending on the thermometer being wet to inform the observer of the lack of water is foolish. There is a much simpler way, but they didn't do it. Since Rossi was able to keep the thing from overflowing when Galantini observed the tests, why do you think he was unable to do this when Krivit was watching the test? Do you think he let it overflow deliberately? Why would he do the test two different ways? He didn't. You are assuming that the tests were different. Galantini's observation is not reliable, it was naive. Do remember, Jed, he is apparently *not* any kind of expert in steam. During the flowing water test he was able to leave the cell alone without adjusting the output because overflow was not an issue. Jed, you have reliable information about the flowing water test? How do you know whether he left it alone or not?
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
At 01:47 PM 8/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jouni Valkonen mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.comjounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: And if we look Rossi's presentation when he did calculations he treated Krivit's audience like he would assume that Krivit was doing journalism to some tabloid news paper(!). That is nonsense. The calculations were perfectly correct. They were straight from any chemistry or physics textbook. There was nothing odd about them. They were not simplified, if that is what you mean. There are two problems I know of with those calculations: the assumption of full vaporization, which is almost certainly off by about 5% and which could be off by much more. And he used the wrong voltage. Standard is 230 V, not 220. Really, it should have been measured. I do not know why you put the word calculations in quotes, as if this is somehow incorrect. You could include more terms to compute the heat balance with more precision, but the method Rossi used was a good first approximation. There has been a lot of speculation here that you have to include a measurement to ensure the steam is dry, but according to every expert and every textbook, that is incorrect. No such term is needed; it is safe to assume no more than 10% wetness. Normally. Overflow water completely whacks that assumption. I'm also willing to bet that one could design a boiler that would produce very wet steam. I'd think 50% would be easy to reach, and probably over 95% wet.
Re: [Vo]:Multiplying entities: why would Rossi fake some tests when others are indisputably real?
At 01:39 PM 8/9/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jouni Valkonen mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.comjounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: When Galantini observed the test, they had large version of E-Cat that can store large quantities, perhaps several liters of water, before it starts overflowing. When I am cooking, I can stop a pot from boiling dry whether it is large or small. It is not difficult at all. Jed, if you could not see the boiling, how could you judge the level? This also means that ictu oculi is very unreliable way to make reliable confirmation. He withdrew the probe and looked at it. It was dry. It would wet if there was water flowing through the machine. How do you know this? Have you considered the nature of the thermometer port, do you know how it is constructed. And what would the temperature of the thermometer be? Wouldn't it be above ambient boiling. When the pressure is relieved for any water on the surface of the thermometer, my expecation would be that it would immediately vaporize. This is very reliable; anyone can see if an object is wet or dry. Sure. By the time he looked at it, it was dry. Jed, you have the imagination of a slug. Am I certain that I'm right about a thermometer like that? Of course not! But it's what I'd expect. I'll try something tomorrow and tell you about it. I'm worried about the thermometer port. Pulling the thermometer out while the E-cat was running lots of steam, if it doesn't have some way of closing itself, would very possibly scald the one pulling the thermometer out. Nobody has reported steam coming out of the thermometer port. I think it collapses, closes, when the thermometer is withdrawn. I was worried that if there were overflow water, it might come out that port. But apparently it, and steam, don't.
