Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so that it matches evaporation rate. First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the experiment is started. Correct. Only the anomalous heat output is adjusted. The only thing that is necessary to account for a flat temperature is, as you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that the entire heating element remains wet. Right, but if it overflows, the incoming cold water will replace the hot water, and it will fall below 100 deg C. That's what happens with other experiments close to boiling with flow calorimeters. You cannot keep it right at 100 deg C when it overflows. To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so. Not a per cent. Just boost it a little if the temperature falls below 100 deg C (starting to overflow), and back off if it seems to rise much above 102 deg C (drying up). There is plenty of space for a reservoir of water in there. It would take a while to fill up to the top, or boil off to the bottom. Besides, Rossi has run it many times before; he knows how to control the anomalous power; he knows what the incoming flow rate is; and he knows high he should set the anomalous power to match the flow rate. The response time to adjust the heat is about the same as it is for a cook to keep a saucepan of boiling vegetables from boiling over or running out of water and burning. Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up. He does not want to overheat the thing. He told me that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Deuterium vs. Hydrogen (wrt Rossi and Ahern)
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: The W of Iwamura also works . . . You mean Ohmori and Mizuno, glow discharge. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Deuterium vs. Hydrogen (wrt Rossi and Ahern)
Jones Beene wrote: However, several dozen of the top researchers in the LENR field were a bit miffed by this change in direction, since they had built careers around Pd-D; and many of them may have jumped ship. I do not know any who say they are miffed at this. None of them seem miffed to me. I do not know any who thought that Pd was a promising long-term solution. There is probably not enough of it to produce all the energy we need. As far as I know, people have been investigating Pd because they can -- because it works. The power density with Ni has been extremely low up until now, and most of the time it did not work, so it was difficult to use. I think the idea was to discover how cold fusion works with Pd, then apply that knowledge to other metals such as Ni or Ti. As I recall, the first person to tell me there is probably not enough Pd and Ni is the best alternative was Martin Fleischmann. He and Pons tested Ni long ago, and got some positive results but not clear enough to publish. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Deuterium vs. Hydrogen (wrt Rossi and Ahern)
Peter Gluck wrote: I mean- Piantelli has tested many transition metals in his system and has found W is also working, he has attributed to it Iwamura. sorry for that Well, Iwamura might have tested W, but I don't recall that he did. I guess Piantelli was confused. Glow discharge is quite different from other methods. It might not even be the same phenomenon, for all I know. - Jed
[Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
Here is a long posting by Steve Krivit: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/Report2-372-EnergyCatalyzerScientificCommunicationAndEthicsIssues.shtml I would say this is correct. He points out many weaknesses in Rossi's presentations and data. He exaggerates the problems, but basically it is correct. Then he nullifies the discussion: I went to Bologna to seek scientific answers to scientific questions that deserve forthright and detailed responses. Rossi does not claim to be a scientist, and he was under no ethical obligation to give me the scientific answers I sought. He is not bound to any scientific credo, and he answers to no institution. Levi, however, is a scientist and, to a certain extent, represents the University of Bologna. (Levi is, of course, entitled to academic freedom to conduct research as he chooses.) My response: I *did not* go to Bologna because Rossi told me he would not answer scientific questions. He made that abundantly clear. Krivit should have asked, as I did. If he had scientific questions, he should have asked them over the telephone. Rossi would not have answered them, and Krivit would have saved the cost of airfare. If Krivit did ask before he left, and he knew that Rossi would not answer scientific questions, then perhaps this whole thing was a set up. Perhaps Krivit went there to make Rossi look bad. It is the easiest thing in the world to make Rossi look bad. I have been dealing with Rossi for over a year and he has not answered any scientific questions yet, so why was Krivit expecting anything different? Rossi answers engineering questions, albeit not to my full satisfaction. Since Rossi is not bound to any scientific credo, and he answers to no institution why is there dispute? Why is there any issue? Rossi refuses to answer questions. End of story. Ditto Levi. I know dozens of professional scientists who will not publish papers or allow me to upload anything about their work. Yeah, sharing information is essential to academic science, but there is no professional ethical obligation to do it. If you want to make private use of it, or withhold it for months in order to make progress yourself and win more acclaim, that's perfectly ethical. It is unfriendly. It is unbecoming of a scientist. But it is not unethical, and it sure isn't unheard of! It is as common as arguing over faculty parking spaces. When a programmer finds a bug in a Microsoft programming language, it is helpful to others if he or she informs Microsoft. If programmers never did that, no programming language would work. However, this is not a professional obligation. People who do not do this are jerks -- that's all. As Krivit points out, Rossi is not a scientist. Yes, we knew that. So why ask him scientific questions? Why demand of him things you know from experience he never provides. If you know that he is not going to prove the steam is dry, why bring up the subject? Either you trust the meter or you don't. I asked Rossi to let me run a test of steam quality. He said no. Why make a fuss about it? Why devote pages of a blog to that topic, and why stir up anti-Rossi feelings? Rossi does that himself on his own blog without Krivit's help. - Jed
[Vo]:Lots of good information in Defkalion forum, mixed in with lots of nonsense
The Defkalion forum is frustrating. There is good information in there but it is lost in the noise. Terry Blanton showed me how to dig out much of the good stuff, by searching for responses from the company to the public. Start in the Search area: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/search.php Limit the search to responses from Defkalion GT, like so: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/search.php?keywords=terms=allauthor=Defkalion+GTsc=1sf=allsk=tsd=dsr=postsst=0ch=300t=0submit=Search Some of the revealing messages are copied below. In the first response, Mass Sensors based on the ultrasound principal means mass flow sensors such as this one: http://www.omega.com/prodinfo/ultrasonicflowmeters.html And under the section titled The Transit-Time Flowmeter here: http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/techinfo.asp?htmlfile=SelectingFlowmeter2.htm An example of the nonsense is someone who claims that heat generation contributes to global warming. Actually, that is slightly true when urban heat islands affect the weather, but most heat from nuclear reactors or fire leave the atmosphere within about a half-hour, as you learn in the desert after the sun goes down. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . In particular, you have said that production Hyperion modules incorporate a completely liquid cooling circuit (no steam). They also have built-in measurement sensors for flow rate and temperature rise. So I'd like to ask you: a) Do you have some working prototype or production modules which incorporate these sensors? b) Have you tested them? c) For a few of the longest duration tests you have, could you please release the following information? - generically without detail, the type of fluid used - electrical power input and how it was measured and whether AC or DC - flow rate (either mass or volume since it's a liquid) - delta T (temperature difference) across the module (input to output) in the fluid as a function of time - something, again generic, about the type of temperature sensors used and the nature of the readout equipment If you can not provide this, why not? Thank you. a) Yes we have. Mass Sensors based on the ultrasound principal, specialy designed and produced in Greece for Defkalion. ±0.5% officially certified accuracy, European Safety Standards: IEC-1010 and CE - EMC. Detaction of air and automatic adjustment. Embeded thermometer (Type K Chromium-Alum): Accuracy ± (0.1% rdg +1°C). b) Yes we have c) 1. Glycole* 2. 220/230V, 5-15W according to different configurations 3. Diffenet configurations available. Typically 50-250Lt/minute (12GPM to 65GPM) 4. We will provide exact tables and graphs with Hyperion product specs. 5. Reports to Hyperion internal electronics with sample rate 2.5/sec. * also tested with other coolants. Re: CE Certification Defkalion GT Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:28 pm Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:56 am Posts: 89 Out of the CE standards, Hyperion products (kW or MW range) have to pass all tests described the the Greek and EU lows according to their industrial code classification. The Authorities responsible to test and certify are -The Ministry of Regional Development and Industry -The Ministry of Environment and Energy through their appointed by low labs. If you can read greek, we can send to you all relevant legislation for your info. Thank you for your question In a close circuit, the volume (and the mass) of a coolant is constant. Using ultrasonic meters for coolants that do not change phase within their closed circuit, mass flow and volume flow conclude exactly the same when measuring energy. The method under the name mass calorimeter has been defined by Grabowsky at all in details in ICCF 16 (February 2011) as the preferred method for LENR measurements. ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf) The basis of this method, as described in the linked paper, has been addapted in our mass calorimeter method embeded as a standard in all of our products as well as for several calibration or testing procedures.
Re: [Vo]:Lots of good information in Defkalion forum, mixed in with lots of nonsense
Here is some of the information from the forum gathered into a single document: http://ecatreport.com/hyperion/defkalions-hyperion-unit-equipped-with-gsm It says, for example: *Question*: What is the maximum temperature of steam that can be produced using Hyperion? *Answer: In a Hyperion/external heat exchanger system, the maximum temperature we can get for the steam at the heat exchanger output is 414C.* . . . Every Hyperion unit is equipped with a GSM [European cell phone] communication, reporting performance and alarms to a main support computer. We think that we will know long before you will notice through Hyperion’s display message the need to send you a recharged unit to replace the “empty” one. You can see this is far ahead of what Rossi has demonstrated. I am pretty sure GSM is a European cell phone protocol. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lots of good information in Defkalion forum, mixed in with lots of nonsense
Other important stuff in that document follows. The reactor holds far more than 6 months of fuel, as I thought. The 6-month limit is to inspect the equipment. That is, to make sure it is still in good working condition, without contamination, leaks or what-have-you. In my book, I predicted this is how first-generation cold fusion reactors would work. Later, as the technology matures, they will go for years between inspections and reloading with fresh gas. Eventually, medical implants and deep-space reactors will work for decades without maintenance. *Question*: How fast is power regulation, let say from 50% to 100%? *Answer: In a 20kW multireactor module, rising from 50% to 100% requires aprox 4min. Detailed graphs will be available with final product specs.* *Question*: What is the minimum power level for Hyperion to be operational? Especially during the night there is no need to run with full power but still power plant cannot be shut down. In this case fuel cost is not a problem but other things like water steam can be saved. *Answer: This depends on the configuration. In the previous example (20kW multireactor), minimum power level is, at present, 2.5kW.* *Question*: The products are built around an E-cathttp://ecatreport.com/ecat device which contains nickel, hydrogen and a catalyst to generate heat. How long will each device last before one of the resources runs out? Can they be refueled from time to time or is the device just replaced? *Answer: Recharging of the e-cat and the hydrogen can is required, at the moment, to take place every six months. This is due to inspection protocols and not real consumption of Ni and Hydrogen (the can last far more to produce heat energy in a non stop condition).* Great stuff! This is the dawn of commercial cold fusion. Any skeptic who thinks that Defkalion and the Greek government are making up these claims is a true believer is preposterous conspiracy theories, and probably thinks the moon landing was faked. All the discussion of Rossi's dog and pony show demonstrations has been a waste of time. Defkalion's equipment is miles ahead of Rossi's. Does anyone want to claim that Defkalion's steam at 414 deg C is not dry, or that the Greek Min. of Environment and Energy cannot do calorimetry or measure steam quality? (By the way dog and pony show is not particularly derogatory.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:It Wasn't Just the Tsunami
Wow! That's a hard-hitting report by the famous Jake Adelstein, author of Tokyo Vice. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Lots of good information in Defkalion forum, mixed in with lots of nonsense
Another interesting comment from the forum: Safety test in progress by the Greek Authorities include procedures and scenarios (for all ranges of products) on: -Stress tests -Operational and safety test in not normal conditions (fire, earthquake etc). Please note that Greece is a country with earthquakes and very high safety standards because of the earthquakes -EU regulation SEVESO II related tests (hydrogen storage and handling) -Tests on critical components failure -All tests for radiations etc, according to EU standards -Safety/Stability tests -Other safety related tests All tests protocols and results will be released and published in Defkalion's site with the Certificates from the Greek Authorities before any releasing of products in Greece. Thank you for your remarks PS E-cat lab prototype shielding is 3 mm thick. Your toaster may produce more radiation than an e-cat.
Re: [Vo]:Lots of good information in Defkalion forum, mixed in with lots of nonsense
Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: With those unscientific predictions placed out in the public domain I have not lost sight of the fact that Defkalion seems to be calling their own shots. Defkalion seems to be moving ahead regardless of what Rossi might personally prefer would be a more prudent course of action to take. I do not know what Rossi prefers regarding safety. I have some concerns about his devices, because Celani detected a burst of radioactivity and because during the 18-hour test it seemed to produce a great deal of heat for a while. Everything I have seen points to Defkalion being far ahead of Rossi. He invented the core technology, and Defkalion is paying him a great deal of money for the license. As they should! But they licensed the technology some years ago and they have pulled far ahead of him in practical applications. The built-in calorimetry in their computerized prototypes (described above) and the test equipment at the Greek regulatory agencies is far better than anything Rossi uses. This sort of thing has often happened in the history of technology. For example, Shockley was soon left behind in semiconductor research, and never made an important contribution after the first one. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It's over dude. My condolences. I, myself, have been feasting on crow for days. Rossi is a Fraud or Delusional. See Steven's Video of his trip to Italy. The pathetic steam output volume is the give-away. You're joking. This is ridiculous. There would be no steam at all if the thing was not producing excess energy. Rossi's analysis is crude but reasonably correct, within 20%. There is no way it could be over 100 deg C without excess. There is also no way Levi or EK can be significantly wrong. Ed Storms sent me his analysis of the test. I will upload it here. Steven will have indistputable numbers and facts within the next few weeks and present the evidence in a far more digestable manner than my pathetic attempts here. Krivit does not what he is talking about. His assertion that they might have measured by volume is ridiculous, and his questions to the professors were rude. No wonder they did not answer. - Jed
[Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A variety of ways the Rossi claims might be wrong have been suggested. Let's examine each. The following values are used: Cp (H2O at 65°) = 4.18 J/g-deg , enthalpy of vaporization @ 100°C = 2.27 kJ/g. *1. Not all of the water is turned to steam.* If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. CONCLUSION: No steam would be visible at the end of the hose, which is not consistent with observation. *2. The steam contains water droplets, i.e, was not dry.* Power to heat water to 100° = 592 watt Power to vaporize all water = 1.94 * 2270 = 4404 watt Total = 4997 watt if all water is vaporized Excess power = 4249 watt The only way steam is wet is when water drops are present. If too many drops are present, they fall as rain (precipitate). It is simply impossible to have a large number of drops present. A 5% figure is chosen as an example here (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html) because this is a plausible amount. Nevertheless, the conclusion would be the same even if 20% water drops were present. Power to vaporize 95% of water = 4183 watt Excess power = 3736 watt CONCLUSION: Significant excess power is being made regardless of how dry the steam may be. *3. Energy is stored in the apparatus that is being released during the demonstration.* Assume e-Cat contained 2 kg of material having an average heat capacity equal to that of copper. Copper has a heat capacity of 0.385 J/g*K. Assume steam is made for 15 min, i.e. the e-Cat remains above 100° C during this time. During 15 min, 1750 g of water is converted to steam = 1.94*15*60*2270 = 3963 kJ Applied energy = 745 *60*15 = 672 kJ Amount of energy that has to be stored = 3291 kJ Energy stored in Cu/degree = 2000*.385 = 770 K/° Initial temperature of e-Cat = about 4400° The e-cat would have to weight over 20 kg to contain enough energy to make steam for only 15 min. after being heated initially to over 500° C. CONCLUSION: The e-Cat cannot retain enough energy to account for the observed behavior during cooling from high temperatures. *4. The flow rate is wrong by a factor of 2.* Power to heat water to 100° = 296 watt Power to vaporize all water = 2204 watt Total = 2500 watt if all water is vaporized Excess power = 1752 watt CONCLUSION: Excess power is being generated even if the flow rate is misrepresented by a factor of 2. *BASIC CONCLUSION: None of the plausible assumptions are consistent with the claim for excess energy being wrong.*
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to find problems, finding mainly imaginary ones. or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. You saw in the video that it was steam! And in the video made by Lewan. You don't believe your own eyes? Levi has a lot to gain monetarily . . . From who? How? Where did you get this information? Levi's university will reportedly get a grant from Rossi, but grant money does not go the professor personally. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will not believe 99% of research. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. This is a bit like saying that Newton and Darwin were not trained as scientists. Newton invented most of what we now call science, and before Darwin biology did not exist, so there was no one to train them. Rossi is one the most brilliant and original inventors in history. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's murder convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. That was ordinary RD, not a fiasco. It may yet be revived and made successful. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious he is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? Their devices have been tested by Greek regulators; they have $280 million; their board of directors that would be suitable for any Fortune 500 company. Do you really, seriously think they are bamboozling the regulators, or faking any of this? As I said, that is akin to the notion that the moon landings were faked, or the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the U.S. Government. There is no doubt Defkalion's claims are real. That proves that Rossi's claims must have been real all along. Do you suppose he is faking and yet by a fantastic coincidence Defkalion tried the same material and it actually worked? Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000 times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without exception -- are without merit. Rossi's crude estimate of enthalpy made during Krivit's visit is correct. The temperature would not be 101 deg C if there was not mostly dry steam. Anyone can confirm this, and it has been confirmed millions of times in the last 200 years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Calculating the output velocity is a good sanity check. Could you see what you get? No, it isn't a good sanity check at the end of a 3 m hose. It would be good with a short hose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. I suppose they are right, and you are wrong. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. Greeks have their backs up against a wall financially speaking and desperate people will do desperate things. That's preposterous. The Greek government is in trouble. Most Greek people are fine. Most of the investors in Defkalion are not Greek, and they have no reason to do anything desperate. The regulators are not going to cooperate in a scam no matter how desperate they may be, because it cannot earn any actual money. If that is your best argument, you should hang it up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen. Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry. That's the whole source of the dispute. Where have you been? Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. - Jed
[Vo]:STOP obsessing about the meter. It makes no difference!!!
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. - Jed It calculates the enthalpy of humid air based on the temperature and relative humidity. It does *not* measure the enthalpy of saturated steam having some unknown steam quality. Look, suppose for the sake of argument you are right. Suppose the steam is much wetter than Galantini thought. It makes no difference! It cannot be so wet there is no anomalous heat. In most of the tests, the water temperature would not exceed 60°C if there was no anomalous heat. You can throw away all of the enthalpy from a phase change to steam and the results are STILL massively positive. So why on earth do you care about this?!? I cannot understand this mindset. It is as if you watch Orville Wright fly for 20 minutes and then you say the flight was invalid because they used a derrick to launch. It is worse than that! It is as if you dismiss the flight because Wright wore his hat backwards, so you say the airplane flew in the wrong direction. This is ridiculous, meaningless, pointless, empty nitpicking. Even if you are right, it proves NOTHING. It means NOTHING. All these other assertions about how Rossi's steam tests and flowing water tests might be wrong and how Rossi, Levi, Krivit cannot read a digital weight scale are blather and a stupid waste of time. Anyone who has done tests of this nature will know that the temperature of 101°C proves there was steam and you can add in the heat of vaporization to get a reasonable approximation, the way Rossi did in Krivit's video. If the meter was wrong or there was some other fundamental problem, the second test with flowing water would proved decisively that there was no heat. Levi would have retracted. He does not want to destroy his own reputation. Furthermore, Defkalion has spent millions developing this technology, and the Greek Ministry has already subjected their prototypes to testing. The machines passed the first round of tests. So there is no question this technology is real. There is a mountain of evidence proving that. You are quibbling with one tiny part of that evidence. This is like looking at one Pd-D cold fusion experiment by one second-rate researcher, finding a possible error, and declaring that every experiment ever done was wrong. You are wasting your time fretting about this!!! It makes NO DAMN DIFFERENCE. Go ahead and assume you are right and Galantini is wrong. Pat yourself on the back, consider this argument case closed, and move on. Just remember that this does not affect the conclusion one tiny bit. It does not call into question Rossi's claims. Remember also that Rossi did not select that particular meter, so don't blame him for this (imaginary) problem you have found with Galantini's work. I am pretty sure that Rossi's attitude about this meter is the same as mine, because we often think alike. Rossi asked an expert to measure the steam quality. He probably does not know much about meters or steam (although he knows way more than I do!). The expert told him the steam is dry. Good enough. Move on. Lewan and I have asked several other experts and they said: Sure, that meter is fine. Anyway the answer can't be wrong by more than 20%, worst case, so what difference does it make? You (Jed) sent to me a private message quoting someone who knows about capacitance probes. Did you email them my response? Yes, I did. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-** sends-e-mail-about-rossi-**steam-measurements-today/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/ Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I . . . The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . That text appears to be scrambled or incomplete. Not sure what 176 Text Code . . . is. In the first test, Galantini used a Delta Ohm monitor to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is a model HD37AB1347 IAQ with a high temperature HP474AC SICRAM sensor. See: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 The brochure and the experts that Lewan and I have contacted say this instrument measures the enthalpy of steam. I expect they are right and the people who say otherwise here are wrong. I have no further comments on this issue. - Jed
[Vo]:Test
Cannot connect to Vortex. - Transcript of session follows - flist: Couldn't chdir to /userspace/smartlist 550 5.3.0 |flist vortex-l... Cannot open input
[Vo]:Comment from Defkalion forum -- plaintext version
I am having trouble getting messages through. Here is one converted to plaintext. Here is an interesting comment from the forum. I think the direct link is: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=148p=2609#p2609 I am going to go through all of the moderator's comments and assemble and FAQ similar to the one we made for Rossi. I will also make a new Special Collection for information on Defkalion and the eCat, because they are eating up the News section. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave wrote: I have a few questions for defkalion: 1) Do you use glycol as the main heating loop and water as the secondary when testing the Hyperions? 2) Have you measured the input and output temperature as well as flow rate for the glycol loop to determine the output heat energy? 3) Is there a phase change in any of the coolants when you run you tests? 4) Do you run a test on the Hyperions after they are assembled that includes a thermal run away condition? Here I refer to output power being generated while no input power is applied. 5) Is it possible for you to display to us the test data from a typical power out/ power in run? I really would like to be able to calculate the power out / power in for a unit being tested in your factory. 6) Will each Hyperion unit have its own calibration chart? What type of information will be supplied on these charts? Please forgive me if you have answered these questions in other threads. There is a great number of posts being made and I have a difficult time locating the ones from which I need information. Thank you for any response you may present. DEFKALION MODERATOR RESPONSE -- Here are the answeres to your questions: 1) Glycol (up to 195C) or other coolants for higher temperatures are in the main closed heating loop cooling the reactor(s). Typically we test Hyperions with external U-tube multi-pass or plate external heat exchangers where, in most cases, water is in the secondary circuit. 2) Yes. We have answered already on the method and specs from the embedded ultrasonic flow meter devises and thermometers we use as standard in all Hyperions for calorimeter as part of the internal heat management system, controled by their electronics. 3)We test Hyperions adjusted never to reach boiling point of any coolant in use. There is change of phase when using certain melting salts as coolants for high demanding applications that require temperature close to Hyperion's max output (414C): at 60-85C such coolants change phase from solid to liquid having boiling point higher than 1000C. 4) Quality and stress testing protocols on products are more demanding than checking only this. The answer to your question is yes. 5) We will provide such graph and data with the specs sheets of products before any release to the market. Then you can do your math having all the rest of the information you will need to check. 6) Yes, there are more than one calibration charts for each product kept in product support database. These include calibration results of every subsystem or component related with its functionality, stability and safety, not just general calibration on performance. Thank you for your questions and your patience
[Vo]:Larger 3.45 MW Defkalion reactor described
See: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=205p=2762 Here is a message I posted which I believe clarifies the description. The gist of this is -- Defkalion will build large reactors made up of smaller ones ganged together, but the output from the smaller reactors will be much higher than the 1 MW ganged-up reactor that Rossi is working on, so there will be fewer small reactors in the array, and the entire array will produce more power than Rossi's large reactor. - Jed Defkalion GT wrote: Hyperion products at kW range will be released and certified with maximum 30kW output in a multi reactor configuration. Arrays of such kW range products in a 20feet container, all in parallel configuration, can output a maximum (at the moment) of 3,45MW(th). That description is a little confusing. Based on the White Paper and other responses here, let me see if I can restate this to be sure we understand: The core Hyperion reactor will be certified for 30 kW output maximum. These reactors will be ganged together in a multi-reactor configuration, connected in parallel. This array of multiple reactors will be placed in a standard 20-foot container. In this configuration, maximum output will be 3.45 MW (thermal), with about 100 reactors ganged together. [Note that Europeans use a comma where U.S. and Japanese use a period decimal point.]
[Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]
Let me summarize some things here regarding electric power generation with the Defkalion reactors. This information is scattered around. Some is from my memory. Defkalion has made a number of comments in the White Paper and on their forum regarding the prospects for electric power generation. They have been testing their reactors with several small generators. I think their plan is to certify the reactors will work with several brands, and then have the customer or OEM supply the generator separately. In other words Defkalion will not manufacture electric generators. A wise decision; they have enough on their plate already. They mentioned several specific brands and types of small generators they have tested, but I can't find those specifics at the moment. In all reactors, they use a primary loop with one liquid that stays in liquid phase, and a heat exchanger for the working liquid or gas to be heated. With glycol the maximum temperature they can reach is 190°C. Carnot efficiency is not very good at that temperature, so my guess is that these reactors will be used primarily for heating, including process steam. They have tested other liquids for higher temperature applications. I don't know what these other liquids are, but one of them reaches 414°C. This is considerably hotter than the primary loop in most fission reactors. Carnot efficiency is fine at this temperature. The said the lowest input to output ratio they have observed is 1:19. I think 1:30 is what they usually achieve, but don't hold me to that. They achieve these ratios every time, on demand. It takes about 4 minutes for the reactors to go to maximum power. It is clear that with these temperatures, input to output ratios, and speed, generating electricity efficiently and making the thing fully self-sustaining will be a trivial problem. It is only a matter of engineering as physicists say. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]
I wrote: It takes about 4 minutes for the reactors to go to maximum power. I meant from stand-by mode. I don't know how long it takes from being fully off. A cold fusion power reactor would be left in stand-by mode I think. There is no need to turn it all the way off to save fuel, obviously. You might want to turn it off to reduce wear and tear on the glycol pump and other components. The 4 minutes was quoted in their blog, by the spokesperson. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: They have tested other liquids for higher temperature applications. I don't know what these other liquids are, but one of them reaches 414°C. Who says that it has to be a pressure of 1 bar? For example at 35 bar the boiling point of ethylene glycol could be raised to about 410 °C They said it was a different liquid. They may have said what it is, but I do not recall and I cannot find the message. I have been having some trouble accessing their forum, and the search feature does not work well. - Jed
[Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek Min. of Energy
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed claims that there has been extensive testing, but we don't have confirmation on that, AFAIK, from the actual testing agencies. And what, exactly, was tested is not clear. I did not claim that. Defkalion did, during their press conference. The Minister of Energy was sitting in the audience, and the top newspapers and TV stations were there. So if that were not true, I suppose the Minister would have told the reporters. He would have objected, strenuously. He did not; he smiled and confirmed the report. The tests have been described in some detail in the Defkalion white paper and forum. I am gathering up this kind of thing for a new FAQ and new page. Abd's imaginary conversation: 3 PM, March 27, 2011: We have operated ten devices supplied by Defkalion for three weeks, now, and they have not blown up, nor do they show any signs of impending failure. The devices did not exceed the rated external temperatures. Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated heat? Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in the test specification. We did not see any explosions. . . . Ha, ha. Very funny. I am getting sick of such comments, made here and elsewhere. Let us get some things straight here, folks: First, European and Japanese regulatory engineers and scientists are every bit as good at their jobs as U.S. ones are. That is to say, top notch. I have read dozens -- hundreds -- of reports by DoE staff members and the Italian Nat. Nuclear labs, on cold fusion and other subjects. These people are professionals. They do not make the kind of idiotic mistakes Abd imagines (presumably as a joke). Second, the mass media, and the people making these comments here and off-line to me are parochial, small minded and biased. If Secretary Chu of the U.S. DoE had attended a press conference in which a U.S. corporation said something like: The DoE has confirmed that our cold fusion reactors work, and government agencies are now in the process of licensing them for commercial production -- and Chu then spoke with reporters and confirmed that, I expect that *every single newspaper* and *every person here* would take it as irrefutable proof that cold fusion is real and the U.S. government is on track to approve commercial reactors. You would not question this, or doubt it. I think you should have more respect for scientists and regulatory officials in other countries. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek Min. of Energy
I wrote: Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated heat? Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in the test specification. We did not see any explosions. . . . Let me point out another thing about this un-funny joke, and the many similar comments coming in by private e-mail. The Greek government, like all other EU counties, has to certify that a product does what is claimed. A company is not allowed to sell a product which does not meet the advertised claims. That would be consumer fraud. Products are tested by agencies to prevent this. If the company says a hybrid car gets 50 mpg and goes 100 mph, it has to submit prototypes to a testing agency that will assure that is true, and give the car a rating. This is how things work in U.S., the EU and Japan. Defkalion has a reactor they claim inputs 450 W and outputs 20 kW. If there is no anomalous heat, and output is actually 450 W, the regulators will see that. They will not allow Defkalion to go around claiming this is a kilowatt heater if it isn't. A correspondent wrote to me that she does not trust EU regulators. They might not do this job adequately. My response: To what extent do you not trust them? Do you think they are incapable of measuring 450 W input and 20,000 W output, continuing for weeks or months? How difficult do you think that is to confirm? Do you seriously doubt that an EU government agency is incapable of determining that? Have you ever been to Europe? You will note that buildings there do not often collapse, the trains do not run off the rails, and Airbus aircraft do not routinely fall from the skies. Evidently, their industrial standards and agencies are about as good as ours. It is one thing to have doubts about the ability of engineers to measure some subtle effect, or to do a particularly difficult state-of-the art test. What you are saying is that you don't trust these people can measure the difference between 450 W and 20,000 W. That's preposterous. Abd is either joking, or he imagines it would not occur to these people to do this measurement. That is also preposterous. It is also insulting and it defies common sense and what all know about modern governments and commerce. Corporations are not allowed to manufacture and sell fake 300,000 kilowatt scale reactors that actually only produce 450 W. That would be like advertising and selling an ordinary 25 mpg car as a 2500 mpg magical super-car. Regulators will notice you are doing that. They will shut you down with a criminal injunction. Unless, of course, they have tested the car and determined that it is true. Lots of people -- customers and regulators -- would notice if Defkalion did that. There is no chance that Defkalion will make money doing that. No country on earth would allow them to do it. So stop with the absurd fantasies and the denial of common-sense reality. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Offers Dealerships
Rock_nj rockn...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly the way free energy inventor (scammer) Dennis Lee raised money, by selling dealerships. Why would Defkalion need to sell dealerships to raise money if they have such a blockbuster energy product? This thing is really starting to smell bad. This is also exactly the way a legitimate company sells machines that require maintenance and regular servicing, such as air conditioners, boilers and automobiles. Do you expect them to set up direct dealerships and support staff in every city? Rock_nj has a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they don't attitude. Defkalion is looking for OEM and dealerships. This is what anyone in their business would do. They have also set up a web site and they are holding press conferences. Again, any legitimate business would do this. Yes, this is also what a scammer does. You can make a long list of things that scammers and real businesses have in common. Every time Defkalion does something on the list, you can point to that as evidence that they are not legitimate. This is illogical and it proves nothing either way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Suppose the DoE were testing a device instead of the Greek Min. of Energy
Abd's response strikes me as a lot of verbiage the obscures the point about these tests. I do not think there is any chance the Minister will allow people to blatantly lie about what his Ministry is doing. More to the point -- Defkalion says the government will issue reports and a license to sell the machines. The reports have to be made public, as a matter of law. The government is supposedly testing the device to be sure the excess heat is real, and in a different set of tests, to be sure the machines are safe. So if the reports are forthcoming, and they confirm the claims, we will know that Defkalion is telling the truth. If the reports never come out, or if the reports say there is no excess heat we will know that Defkalion is lying. I do not think there is any chance the Greek government will conspire with Defkalion in fraud or in some sort of gigantic joke. We can rule that out. There is not the slightest chance the government will make a mistake measuring 450 W in and 20,000 W out. No engineer or scientists on planet earth could make a mistake on that scale. It seems to me this is exactly what skeptics have been demanding of cold fusion all these years. This will give us a straightforward yes or no answer in a few months. I do not understand why skeptics are complaining about this, but several of them are, in private e-mail messages to me. What more do these people want?!? They are saying the Greek government is too slow or or you can't trust EU engineers to measure the difference between 450 W and 20,000 W. That's unreasonable. - Jed
[Vo]:This is a hard-luck country-western ballad ISP?
Good grief! Terry Blanton reports that this discussion group is being hosted on an ISP afflicted with the problems of a country-western hard-luck ballad; i.e., the dog died, Robert is in prison, and the singer's best friend left with the truck and the wife: That would be Carl. He's kinda filling in. Here's a post from the EskimoNorthUsers Yahoo group from Tuesday: Today the mail server crashed, and the web server crashed. The mail server is now back online, however the web server really bit the dust this time. The cpu in it died. I have replaced the motherboard and cpu, with one that has two cpu's on it. They are both 300Mhz, instead of 400mhz, but there is two of them instead of one. Hopefully they can handle the load for now because it's all I have for spares until Robert gets out of Prison. . . . I thought this kind of ISP went extinct in the 1990s. Maybe we should consider moving to another ISP? The problem with rejected messages is annoying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Comment from Defkalion forum -- miscellaneous stuff
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:54 PM 7/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Nikola Tesla... Ahhh . It can't be him. He's dead. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Perfect simulation of e-cat with 1200W, for Lewan's video.
It is hard to tell, but that does look similar to NyTeknik's video. - Jed
[Vo]:Defkalion comments on the role of the electric heater
This sounds like the heater is used only to bring the cell up to the operating temperature to trigger the reaction. I think they said the method of regulating the reaction is to vary gas pressure, rather than Rossi's method of changing the auxiliary electric heater power. There appear to be substantial differences between the way Defkalion engineers the cells and controls them, and the way Rossi does. - Jed QUESTION Defkalion GT, In another thread you wrote, and I quote: Defkalion GT wrote: (there are no industrial secrets living in the electric heater or its role) In light of this, would you please tell us what purpose the *two* electric heaters serve in the e-Cat? From previous comments made by Rossi, I understand that the first heater is a primary or main and the second a safety. Regarding the primary heater, how is it that a heater can be used to * control* the robust exothermic reaction in the e-Cat? If the primary heater is disengaged, does this cause the reaction to cease in a rapid fashion? And if this is correct, how can a second heater serve as a safety device? If the reaction can be controlled or shut down by removing power from the first heater, wouldn't engaging the second heater just re-start the reaction? Under which circumstances would the safety heater be engaged or disengaged? You can see how this may be confusing and appear contradictory - but the answers may lie in what is meant by 'safety' in this instance. Can you please explain the purpose and action of the safety heater - and who or what is being kept safe from what potential harm or other eventuality? Thank you in advance. Reasonable answers to these questions would be greatly appreciated by myself, and others as well. ANSWER In a post (viewtopic.php?f=3t=54http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=54) we answered to one quiestion on our products functionality as follows: * Every kW Hyperion products is equiped with electronics and sensors that, among other, monitor in real time the mass/sec and the temperature difference (Delta) between output and input of the coolant in use (mass calorimeter). If this Delta is beyond a pre-defined point at products installation then: If it is a singe reactor unit, the reactor stops If it is a multi-reactor unit, then either some reactor(s) stop or all reactors stop based to a performance balance algorithm within safety/operational electronics. So, to answer your question: If you consume the heat energy, then the Hyperion continious to produce heat energy so you can achive max performance at any time of the day. If you do not consume, Hyperion turns off and then on automaticaly.* The electric heating system is part of the switching system of our products. It is required to heat the reactor every time it is needed to be turned on, as already explained also by A.Rossi and described in his patent application. This switching mechanism is playing a significant role on the functionality and safety of our products. There is not any positive contribution from the electric heating system to the performance ratio of our products. Thank you for your question and your interest on our products.
[Vo]:Defkalion closes forum
Here a notice at the Defkalion forum: Due to an overload in traffic and a bottleneck in moderating discussions, Defkalion Green Technologies has decided to temporarily freeze this Forum’s operation until further notice. All comments have been welcomed. We thank you all for your participation. For those with an interest to collaborate with Defkalion Green Technologies on international sales, RD and for HR purposes, please use our ‘Contact Us’ page on this website. I have had constant timeout problems trying to access it. I thought it was a dumb idea for them to have a forum in the first place. They should have just uploaded the information that their moderator has provided, in a single organized document. A forum to discuss the technology should be independent of the company, as this forum is. The problem here is broken servers and people in jail. - Jed
[Vo]:The great oil sniffer hoax
Here is a technological hoax that bamboozled $150 million from high officials in oil companies and governments. I did not realize such large, high-level hoaxes existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax A skeptic suggested to me that Defkalion might be something like this. I doubt it. I do not think anything in cold fusion resembles this. The closest thing to it is plasma fusion, such as the ITER project, which most outside experts think has no chance of technological or commercial success. However, the experimental results from plasma fusion are real, beyond question. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion's Carbon Rings of Benzene
Terry Blanton wrote: but, note, that the article says that Case had his own special mixture of activated carbon. Now, as I recall, he actually made his from coconut shells. I do not know if he made them. I doubt it. Many of the commercial catalysts are deposited on carbonized coconut shells or husks (see). It is naturally occurring fractalized material. Fractalized does not appear to be a word, but you know what I mean. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some strange assertions. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Where does the power go? Out of the E-Cat or the tube? Not very likely since the losses are small, 5 kW is a lot of power and it would heat the room perceptibly. It would heat the area around the e-cat, and people who have observed the tests tell me that it does. However it would not heat the room if the thermostat is nearby the reactor. On the contrary, it would cool down the rest of the room, in winter with central heating or in summer with central air. It is a big room and I doubt that 5 kW would make much difference. That would be the equivalent of 3 U.S. electric room heaters. There are large offices with more heaters than that under people's desks. I have one myself. That's probably a violation of fire laws but anyway, they do not make the offices warm. Also, the aggregate office equipment and lighting in a large office or grocery store consumes a lot more than 5 kW but those places are not noticeably hot. Anyway, Ekstrom is wrong. Most of the heat is going down the drain, as steam or hot water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reports of tritium production from Rossi-like experiments
Jones Beene wrote: Claytor tried to go public with early convincing work nearly twenty years ago, but because of the National Security Implications he was effectively silenced; and dropped out of view for many years. That's not true. He published several papers. Several are uploaded at LENR-CANR.org. His work is not a bit secret. He attended several conferences. He has not been doing much cold fusion in recent years, but he is back at it. He was never silenced. I have heard from him from time to time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:First Photo of Mass-Produced e-Cats?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-07-12 05:36 PM, noone noone wrote: I find nothing strange about this report. So what if he sold the building. He kept the reactor, and has produced hundreds more since then. Defkalion has proceeded to build hundreds more. Defkalion has actually built their own units, tested them, and they work great. What documentation is there for that? It's certainly interesting, if it's true. It is interesting, but Rossi has never made a big deal about it, or pointed to it as proof that his claims are real. I think it was Focardi who was telling his friends you should see this reactor in the factory. It was mentioned in the patent, I believe, with no details. Granted, that is a puzzling thing to do. Elsewhere you wrote: The one piece of total clincher evidence, the unit which was actually working as a heater in a factory, cannot be displayed or examined because the factory has been sold. (That sort of event is typical of so many impossible inventions we've heard of in the past: The videotape was lost, the original unit was stolen, sorry, you'll just have to believe me that it really did run continuously for X weeks... If Rossi has said anything like this, you would have a valid point. But he has not, as far as I know. He never claimed to this was clincher evidence. He never said if only I could show you but alas I cannot . . . Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase, As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,' Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,' Or such ambiguous giving out, to note That you know aught of me . . . Rossi has done none of this. He noted in passing that he ran a large reactor at a factory. You can take it or leave it; he does not care. He is not staking anything on that. For that matter, he is not staking anything on the demonstrations this year, or the 18-hour tests. He says all of that is unimportant, and the only thing that counts is the 1 MW reactor test at Defkalion. There's no need to go out of my way to find things like this, they just sort of drop in. If you were paying attention from the start, you'd realize the mysterious Erewhon factory has been a bit of a puzzle all along; to read that it's vanished forever is remarkable. No stranger than other things about Rossi and his claims. I like Erewhon factory. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Alan J Fletcher wrote: [KRIVIT] Professors Sven Kullander, retired from Uppsala University, and Hanno Essén, with the Royal Institute of Technology, endorsed Rossi’s claimed technology in a news story on Feb. 23, 2011, before they had seen or inspected the device. Essén is the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Association, a nonprofit education group well-known in academic circles. Krivit is seriously departing from being an impartial observer. KE ... endorsed before they had seen or inspected the device. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article324.ece Hardly endorsed : chock-a-block full of ifs and buts and speculation. Why not mention that they evaluated the eCat and reported on it? Alan understates the situation. Seriously departing is not strong enough. In case there are readers here who have not followed events: EK first tested the machine, THEN they endorsed it. Krivit's statement is astounding. It is either terribly confused or an outrageous lie. What could he be thinking?!? Some people might claim that EK did not do adequate testing, or that their methods were not good enough to support their conclusions. That is a legitimate difference of opinion. But it is clear that they themselves think these tests are sufficient to support the level of endorsement they made in NyTeknik. It is 100% clear that they did the tests first, then endorsed. Their endorsement was not unconditional. They left plenty of wiggle room for themselves in case Rossi turns out to be wrong. As they should; as any academic scientist would. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ecatreport part 2
Damon Craig wrote: The plot thickens. It may very well be that the device doesn't have to deliver more energy than put into it. What the heck are you talking about?!? Of course it delivers more than you put into it. This is a peculiar thing to say. It may have a market even if it fails this criterion. What possible market would it have? I get odd feeling that Mr. Rossi may not know the difference. Of course he knows the difference! He is an engineer, and a self-made millionaire from his previous energy-related inventions. - Jed
[Vo]:Not working again
A couple of messages did not go through. We should give serious consideration to moving this discussion group to a new ISP. - Jed
[Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
People wonder why Levi has not given out more information about the 18-hour flowing water test. I wish he would publish a detailed report listing the type of flowmeter and so on. It is annoying to me that he has not. I expect Levi and the others consider that test irrefutable. So do I. If I had been there observing that test, I would have glanced at the outlet thermocouple reading, put my hand on the outlet hose for a moment, and then I would have been 100% absolutely certain there is massive excess heat. I would have had zero doubt, to 5 significant digits. No matter how far off the flow meter or input power meter may be, you could not get a temperature difference large enough to feel unless there is tremendous excess heat. A quick glance at the flow rate and the size of the inlet electric wire would have told me that the temperature difference from input power cannot be more than 0.1°C no matter what. I would have dismissed any questions about that result as amateur foolishness. I expect that is how Levi feels. It would be like this scenario: Guy drives car into repair shop. Tells mechanic: Something is wrong with my car. It doesn't steer straight. MECHANIC: That's 'cause you got a flat tire. Your right front's flat. GUY: Are you sure that's the problem? MECHANIC: !@$%## Of course I'm friggin' sure! To take another imaginary example, a guy gives me today's weather report in Japanese, which happens to be: 九州北部地方では、１４日の日中は気温が３５度以上となるところがあるでしょう。熱中症など健康管理に注意してください。 I tell him it is for northern Kyushu and it says beware of heat-stroke. GUY: Are you sure this is a weather report and not a love letter or something about an insurance claim? ME: Of course I'm sure, you nitwit! I was translating stuff like this 20 years before you were born. Rossi's attitude towards Krivit is similar. In the video, Rossi did a rough approximation of the heat balance on a paper chart. I am sure that result is correct as far as it goes. I expect it is no more than 10% or 20% off. That has no effect on the overall conclusion. This is fundamental physics going back hundreds of years, long before they invented RH meters. The heat of vaporization of water at ~1 atm is fixed. That is definitely steam coming out the end of the pipe. The blabber that Krivit raised and that has been repeated here about RH meters is irrelevant even if it is is true -- which I doubt. Rossi may have over-reacted to the criticism. I could have told you he would. No one is perfect, and he tends to be thin-skinned. Krivit probably knows this, and may have provoked him. (Ya' think?) I sympathize with Rossi. It is irritating when an amateur lectures you about a subject you know far better than he does. You can be darn sure that Rossi knows more about heat than Krivit does. Or than I do. He may not know much about RH meters but he never claimed to. You don't need one to measure enthapy when you are only aiming to make a rough approximation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ecatreport part 2
I expect this report is exaggerated or confused. NASA is not charged with authority to devise a program to make cold fusion the main energy source for the world. That is far beyond their mandate. Heck, they don't even have rockets anymore. I wonder if it was Rossi who claimed that NASA is doing this. It is a little unclear from this report who said what. In this report, Rossi's statements about some technical details differ substantially with the statements made by Defkalion on their web site and web-site forum. For example, Rossi claims there are 300 cells in a 1 MW Defkalion Hyperion reactor. Defkalion says there are 100 cells in a 3 MW prototype. I think Rossi and the people at Defkalion should sit down and review the designs, and they should publish accurate information in agreement from both sides. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Damon Craig wrote: Check out their report. They report the power input as 500 Watts in their energy calculations. Why? That is incorrect. The report says: The electric heater was switched on at 10:25, and the meter reading was 1.5 amperes corresponding to 330 watts for the heating including the power for the instrumentation, about 30 watts. The electric heater thus provides a power of 300 watts to the nickel-hydrogen mixture. This corresponds also to the nominal power of the resistor. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf Please get your facts straight. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Terry Blanton wrote: Trust but verify. I don't get that. If you have verified, you don't need to trust. It makes more sense to say: Don't trust; verify. OR Why bother trusting if you can verify? This was with regard to weapons reductions in the Reagan era. By that time, both sides had excellent satellite spy systems so they implement a treaty wherein missile solos were blown up, the top covers smashed, and both sides could confirm the other side had done that. It was wise of the leaders to agree to this. It was enlightened. But trust did not enter into it -- it was based on what had become verifiable. The wisdom was in recognizing that technology had developed enough to allow such verification, and that it was in everyone's best interest to reduce the number of weapons. With regard to experimental claims, I never trust people. I only trust instruments, and only after I have verified them by comparing them to other instruments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Definitely proving cold fusion.
Daniel Rocha wrote: So, why not making an LENR experiment close to a big neutrino detector, like the kamiokande? This was done at Kamiokande. Unfortunately the experiment was amateur and there is no chance it produced a cold fusion effect. It would be a good idea to try again with a experiment that is definitely producing excess heat. There is no other way to be sure you have a cold fusion effect in the first place. There is no point to testing a cell that is not producing heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: And this has been said to you many times, Jed, and you keep repeating that this is nonsense. It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. The Lewan video proved that the smaller cells are producing lots of steam. The precise amount of steam does not matter because if there was not excess heat, there would be water at 60°C and no steam at all. If you do not believe the 18-hour test data, you have no reason to believe any of the other data, so you might as well drop the subject. If you don't like the steam tests, and you actually believe this garbage about people boiling away water with 7 times less energy than it normally takes, or 20 times, or 1000 times (the numbers keep changing) then I suggest you forget about the boiling tests and look at liquid water flow tests of these machines only. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Damon Craig wrote: 1) How often the ammeter was observed is unreported. People have done any number of cold fusion experiments, including Ni-H ones, in which input power was recorded on computer. If you don't wish to believe this particular experiment then I suggest you look at some of these others. It seems unlikely to me that this one is fake and the others are real. It also seems unlikely to me that the professors would only look at the ammeter once. But you should believe whatever nonsense pops into your head if it makes you feel good. 2) No mention is made of an internal heater that would draw additional power. The ammeter is attached to the only wire going into the cell. It measures all of the heater power and all of the power to the electronics (which was about 30 W). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote: Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments prior to the tests. This is not possible. It is very easy to confirm that the instruments were more-or-less correct with visual and tactile senses. That is to say, you can see the flow rate is about 1 L/s; you can see that the inlet wire cannot support more than ~2 kW of input power (or it will burn); and you can feel the inlet is substantially warmer than the outlet. Given maximum possible input power, the outlet would not be more than 0.1°C warmer than output, and you cannot feel this difference. I do not know for a fact that someone felt the outlet hose, but I have never met an experimentalist who would fail to do this. In the other tests, people I know who attended made several common-sense visual and tactile confirmations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Obviously I meant to write: . . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . . I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece . . . the inlet was tap-water temperature, around 15°C and the outlet was around 20°C for most of the test, and for a while it was 40°C. It is very easy to confirm that these temperature difference are real, and not an instrument artifact or caused by fake instruments. Of course you cannot tell if the outlet is 35°C or 45°C, but you can tell it is much warmer than the inlet, and the input power would only make it a fraction of a degree warmer. People who imagine it is impossible to visually confirm that the flow rate is about 1 L/s, and not -- say -- 10 times less or 100 times less have no experience doing experiments, plumbing, or working with ornamental ponds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Definitely proving cold fusion.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: There is no other way to be sure you have a cold fusion effect in the first place. There is no point to testing a cell that is not producing heat. That's not *entirely true*, but it is a huge caveat. In the early days, lots of experiments were done where they didn't even look for heat, they looked for nuclear products. Hey, if it's fusion, there have to be nuclear products, eh? This experiment was electrochemical Pd-D circa 1990. Back then the only practical way to confirm that the reaction was happening was to measure heat or tritium. Pam Boss can now measure neutrons, but that's a different story. There were other techniques back then such as cryogenic gas loaded Ti chips done at BARC that could produce a definite sign of a nuclear reaction besides heat. Sure. Like helium. But, as Jed is implying, no heat, no reaction-- probably!, it's possible there was some and you might detect certain possible nuclear products -- but if you don't see nuclear products, you have demonstrated, with considerable effort, nothing. Actually, I was thinking more of diagnostics. It is easier to measure heat than helium. Tritium is sporadic. The cryogenic Ti produces a burst reaction which is not what you want when trying to detect neutrinos. You want a steady reaction, I think. Anyway there was never the slightest chance this particular experiment would work. As I said, it was amateur. There was a photo published in the mass media of the researchers holding the Pd cathode up to the camera with their bare fingers just before launching the test. That ensures massive contamination from skin oil and the like. The photo made it clear that the other hardware in the experiment was filthy by the standards of electrochemistry. In electrochemistry you have have to take pains to ensure cleanliness. I mean 2 or 3 days of cleaning and preparation. Also, I have it on pretty good authority that they confused the anode (+) and the cathode (-). The only experiment dirtier than this that I know of was done by the late Tom Droege. He worked in his basement. He showed me a slide of his cathode surface, and the conversation when like this: ME: What are those fibers? They seem to be galvanized on to the surface. TOM: Cat hairs. The cat you see in the other slide likes to sleep on the calorimeter, because it's warm. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Peter Gluck wrote: In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e. 15.65 gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose could do it. In a commercial building it should not be a problem. It seems it was a surprise- the 130kW heat peak and this was quenched with the maximum available flow. The flow rate was set at the beginning and not changed. No flowmeter was installed. They told me they used a standard water-meter style flowmeter, such as you use for a house or building main supply. These things are very reliable. They cost about $50. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote: To be fair, in this report http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3. This link does not work. Want to try again? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote: Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed, so go here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ and look for Rossi-Focardi paper listed under resources on the left side of the page. You mean the RIGHT side. Right bottom, where it says Rossi-Focardi paper. I am forever getting my right and left mixed up. I think it is a symptom of dyslexia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
Harry Veeder wrote: To be fair, in this report http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3. The text is confusing. The liquid flowing water tests are listed in Table 1, p. 4. Flowing water is method B, in the tests conducted in 2009. There are two tests: Feb. 17 to March 3 (15 days), input was 5.1 kWh, output was 1006.5 kWh. That's 375 hours, so input is 14 W and output is 2,684 W. Right? March 5 to April 26 (22 days), input was 18.45 kWh and output was 3768 kWh. 527 hours. Input 35 W, output 7,150 W. The heading for Table 1 is below the table. This is a confusing document. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Pure steam, hotter than 100C, is a stable effluent: If the power output varies a little bit, you'll still be making pure steam at some temperature above 100C. Pure steam, at 100C, is *not* stable: If the output power varies just a little, you'll either be making a mixture of water+steam (if the power drops) or superheated steam (if the power increases). To maintain the output in an unstable state you either need phenomenal good luck or you need active feedback. Yes, but this is not hard to arrange. When you steam artichokes for an hour, you have to peek into the pot from time to time to make sure the water level is not too low (add more water), or it has not stopped boiling (raise the heat). Rossi does this by watching the temperature. When it starts to drop, there's too much water so he turns up the heat. When it starts to rise, he turns down the heat. You do not need second-by-second adjustments to do this. The shape of the e-Cats is telling. There is plenty of space for boiling liquid water at the bottom, a large chimney, and the temperature sensor is at the top. Very little unvaporized water will escape from this system. It would be easier to keep the water level right with glass tube on the outside or a water-level sensor, but Rossi tends to do things the hard way. It is certainly not impossible to do it by listening and watching the temperature. I have enough experience steaming artichokes to know that. The Defkalion reactor primary cooling loops are all liquid phase, and they stay liquid even when the application calls for water steam. They use glycol or some other liquid with a high boiling point. This makes much more sense than Rossi's manual minute-to-minute adjustments for boiling water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
Jouni Valkonen wrote: These are just demonstrations, not scientific validations. And the purpose of them was that Rossi let some people to observe, while he was doing his own tests for the E-Cat units. Only January demonstration was actual demonstration. Exactly right. Rossi said this, very clearly. When he invited me, I said I wanted to do confirmation test, where I measure temperatures independently and do a sparge test with a short hose. He said no, he does not want any more tests until after the 1 MW demonstration. He said he does not have time for such tests. That is reasonable. It does take all day. He also said that as a matter of policy he wants no more tests. I do not understand why he thinks this is a good policy, but it is his decision. What he showed Krivit was only intended to show how the thing works, not to prove that it works. This resembles a video or computer simulation more than a physics experiment. It is fine for that purpose. Having said that, I feel that Krivit should have paid more attention to some technical details. He should have made more observations and reported more facts, such as whether Rossi placed the feedwater reservoir on a weight scale, and if so, how much did it weigh before and after. This would not have proved the claim, but it would have bolstered it. Also, when Rossi removed the hose from the drain, Krivit might have asked him to hold it before the camera for 5 minutes or so. It isn't easy viewing a thing like this and making sound observations, especially while holding a camera, so you have to sympathize with Krivit. Rossi is not very good at demonstrations, in my opinion. That is no reflection on his skill as an engineer. Doing a demonstration is like teaching classes or writing technical manuals. Many people who are good at what they do are hopeless when it comes to explaining or teaching what they do. That's why companies have both engineers and technical writers, in different cubicals. You have to maintain the separation factor, by the way. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I know quite what Rossi would have said: Too dangerous. I emptied it just now, so it's safe to hold this up, but water condenses inside the hose, because the steam cools, and eventually enough will build up that boiling hot water will spurt out of the hose, so I certainly cannot allow this. He did say something about it being dangerous. I do not think he gave the reason. Anyway, that is nonsense. There is nothing dangerous about it. Even if boiling hot water does spurt out that is no danger. Let it cool, get a sponge, and wipe it up. However, he did allow Lewan to have the hose drain into a bucket or something. Jed, he allowed sparging. He also allowed Lewan to hold it in the open air for while, in front of a black cloth. I do not recall how long, but it was a longer than Krivit's video. The bucket was too far from the reactor for a sparge test to measure enthalpy. By the time the steam got there it was mostly condensed. You need to use a short hose for this technique. Anyway, there is no doubt this cell produces steam, and as I said, with most tests input power is only enough to have it produce hot water, so there is no doubt it is producing anomalous heat. All of arguments here to the contrary are a waste of time. The only question is how much heat, and these tests are not adequate to determine that, so there is no point to debating it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Joshua apparently wrote: Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased the temperature of the steam substantially. This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of water converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1 atm. Therefore, the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the water to boiling plus what it takes to vaporize it. In the January 14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not ~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per second. 17 kW was how much they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test, during most of the test. The displacement pump was used in the steam tests but not the Feb. 10 liquid water test. I believe you set that pump to whatever speed you want, up to some limit. OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... and intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab would possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall because he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and every single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same degree that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when exploring uncharted territory. That is what I have heard about him. From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. No, he adjusts the power. He did not change the flow rate in any test. You can tell the flow rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump is at the same rate the whole time. You can tell they measured the flow correctly because they used a weight scale, which is the most reliable method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test apply to another. He is. Partly my fault, since I quoted 17 kW without specifying which test I meant. People should look here for the numbers: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Cude is correct about constant flow rate, though, as being assumed. No, he is wrong. It was not assumed, it was measured by several methods, such as keeping an eye on the weight scale. I do not know about the Krivit demonstration but in other tests people made sure the flow rate was constant. Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very carefully. No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense. From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. No, he adjusts the power. See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an out. Anything is conceivable but fraud is so unlikely I am not going to bother worrying about it. Levi et al. spent a month working with this device. I think the only way it could be fraudulent would be if they are in cahoots with him, and they are hiding the fact that he adjusts the flow rate or there is a hidden wire, or something like that. I do not think they could overlook this, because if it were me there instead of them, I would *instantly* notice if Rossi changed the flow rate. Perhaps they are monumentally stupid and he has fooled them. I have no means of detecting fraud if Levi et al. are taking part in it. In that scenario, they might have invented the Feb. 10 test out of whole cloth -- it might be a complete lie. The assertion that this might be fraud is not easily falsifiable at present. But it will soon be resolved one way or the other. If this is fraud, Defkalion is also committing fraud; their factory will never open; and a year from now we will know they are liars. Also, if it is fraud, people such as Brian Ahern who think they have seen anomalous heat from Rossi-type cells must be wrong, and eventually they will report their mistake. I do not think it is possible that Rossi is committing fraud yet by some fantastic coincidence people who replicate him get real results. So fraud will be revealed soon, and there is no point to speculating about it or worrying about it. So far, all of the reasons presented here that supposedly point to fraud have been blather, along with all of the reasons to dispute the heat of vaporization of water. Jouni Valkonen is 100% correct: This is nonsensical speculation. . . . And we know that tea pots do not produce wet steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is very simple and very basic physics. However, just right in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective . . . Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an eye on the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling water coming through, and the temperature drops several degrees. It would not be close to boiling if the flow is too fast for it to boil. What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be maximum power. Sure. Of course that is what he is reporting. He is assuming 100% dry steam which is an over-estimate. On the other hand, he is severely underestimating because he only takes into account heat that reaches the water. A lot of it goes to heat the eCat outer walls and room air, rather than the water. Jed, you really are not paying attention. If it's true that the sound doesn't change, that doesn't guarantee that the flow rate doesn't change, because there could be valving or obstruction within the E-Cat. These pumps are designed for constant flow, but they cannot maintain it if flow is obstructed. Actually, this particular type of pump is pretty good at maintaining a steady flow against different pressures. Better than peristaltic pump. Anyway, they used a weight scale as flowmeter in the steam tests, and a flowmeter-flowmeter in the liquid flow tests, so there is no question about the flow rate and the fact that it was steady. No need to consider that. i.e., there is nothing about Lewan's report that guarantees that all that water was vaporized. Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg C at location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure is negligible with this device. As Valkonen points out, and as any elementary textbook shows, that's all you need to know. Rossi is quite right about that. The temperature, atmospheric pressure and the shape of the device guarantee that nearly all the water was vaporized. People who do not understand
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will rise. Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will occur. No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it wouldn't be. Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same. It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the boiling water which flows out. As you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it boiling while hot water flows out. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. This is the result you see in the data from several of the high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing. Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said. At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better in many ways. Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input power for a while. I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame he did not use a video camera or write down the duration. It is hard to estimate, but I think boiling should have stopped, and the temperature should have fallen rapidly after a minute or so. I say this because the specific heat of iron and copper is about 10 times lower than water so there is not much thermal mass, and an immense amount of energy is removed by boiling. Boiling stops quickly when you turn off the flame on a gas stove. If it continues boiling for 5 minutes without input I am sure that would be proof of anomalous heat. I did a test boiling 2 L of water the other day in a pot with a glass cover and a K-type thermocouple. Less than a minute after cutting off the heat the boiling stopped, and 5 min. later the water temperature was down several degrees and the headspace down ~5 deg C. That was the case even though the metal pot was pretty heavy and of course much hotter than boiling temperature. It is a shame Brown did not observe heat after death for 5 or 10 minutes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
P.J van Noorden wrote: the airpressure on April 28th 2011 was 1011 mbar, so the boilingpoint must have been 99.9 degC. The difference in boilingtemperature can be explained by the accuracy of the thermometer (+/- 0.4 degrC). At these temperatures with boiling water I doubt the water temperature was uniform. I have recently been calibrating some thermocouples and thermometers at various temperatures. I have seen considerable non-uniformity. There is no mixer inside the eCat. Barometric pressure also varies during the day and from place to place. A 0.4°C difference from the boiling point based on weather reports is not surprising. I will upload some notes about my calibration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. - Jed
[Vo]:Is the itty-bitty photo visible?
I posted a message titled Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples with an itty-bitty 17 kilobyte photo attached. Did the message come through? Did the picture come through? If you cannot see the picture and you really want to see it, contact me directly and I will send it. It is no big deal. I am curious to see if it came through. I suppose the archives will not show it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples
I forgot to mention there were ~2 L of water in the pot. I wrote: 3 Omega GT-736590 thermometers, red liquid, total immersion, -10 to 100°C, marked in 1°C increments Correction: -10 to 110°C Regarding the heat-after-death event that Brown observed, I am assuming -- or pretending, really -- that the power measurement was drastically wrong and there was enough input power to make the thing boil. That is not actually possible. Power meters are reliable. In both the Brown and Krivit demos, the input power is not high enough to allow boiling because much of the power goes to heat the eCat metal which radiates into the room, even with that insulation. In real life, the temperatures close to boiling alone prove that there is anomalous heat, but to humor the skeptics we will pretend you can heat water inside a metal container without losses. Anyway the pretend scenario is that a couple of kilowatts of heat go into the cell because the input power is mismeasured. It boils. The power is turned off to demonstrate heat after death. Brown is not sure how long; roughly 2 minutes. Either because there is anomalous heat, or because there is so much heat left in the metal, the temperature does not fall significantly. Or, at least, Brown did not notice a persistently lower temperature. This may or may not indicate anomalous heat. As I said, it is a shame Brown did not write down temperatures, duration, the change in the mass of cooling water shown on the weight scale and other observations, and it is a shame he did not think to ask Rossi to leave the cell in heat-after-death mode for 5 minutes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is the itty-bitty photo visible?
Peter Gluck wrote: It is perfectly visible. But let's measure the enthalpy of the steam not any other characteristic I am calibrating thermocouples. Is that not allowed? More calibrations and more specific information about temperatures, duration, the mass of metal and the mass of cooling water would enhance this discussion. To paraphrase the monster in Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein: Calibrations, good. Heat, _go-o-o-od_. Blather, bad. Unfounded speculation, bad. I measured the approximate enthalpy of steam a couple of months ago, with an electric frying pan. I did not observe the miraculous event that skeptics believe is so common, wherein the water disappeared at 7, or 20 or 1000 times the textbook rate. Due to inefficiencies and the frying pan heating the room air, I found it took considerably more energy to boil away the water than the textbooks indicate. No surprise. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: How do you take a 30 minute glance? Well, Brown said in his report that Rossi showed him heat after death for about 2 minutes. (He also told me this.) That's more than 30 seconds. Perhaps Rossi just means for a short while. I do not think he means 30 seconds in the literal sense. It is a shame Rossi gets bent out of shape so easily. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office is the same as the one of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ? Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. This reminds me of the joke about a person who says Shakespeare did not write his plays, it was another man of the same name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: I have been trying to replicate the E-Cat transmutations in an open-source kind of way and I'm ready to start asking the community for suggestions on how to proceed. It took Rossi 15 years and hundreds of tests to figure out how to make this work. Highly experienced experts are trying to replicate him, with some success, but nowhere near the high input to output ratios he reports. I do not think there is enough information publicly available to support an open source replication because it is not open source. It is secret. That is unfortunate but it is mainly the fault of the Patent Office. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. I don't think it was impromptu. It was installed in the line to the machine, as far as I know. A sub-meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. It's not a joke, that's a real possibility. No, it isn't. The water meter shows total consumption, not just instantaneous demand. If the flow rate had changed for a long time the total consumption would have fallen and this would have shown up in the final numbers. That would be true even if they used the building meter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is an imposter. I missed that. As far as I know he is the fellow who has been involved in cold fusion for a long time. I have no idea where he works. I am sure he attended Oxford. I have no reason to doubt he is who he says he is. I suggest people should ignore Rossi's outbursts and insults. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would obviously be cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature gradient in the E-Cat, with cooler water near the inlet and hotter water near the outlet. Only water rising to the outlet pipe would flow out. So wouldn't this be the hottest water in there? What would cool it to produce cool flowing water as you claim? I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around pretty quickly. That is one of the things I observed calibrating the thermocouples the other day. There are larger gradients in ice slurry, unless you vigorously stir it. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. Jed, there is a constant stream of cold water coming in, what are you talking about? I meant only that when it is fulling up, the cold water cools it somewhat, but when it is full, not only does the cold water cool it, but a nearly equal volume of hot water leaves. If flow rate is 5 ml/s, it is as if you add 5 ml of cold water and then remove another 5 ml of hot. Perhaps this does not make much difference, depending on the total volume. Further, we have no evidence that power is increased or decreased in the later demos. Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short time. About 20 minutes, I think. Long enough to be certain it is real, with this equipment, at this flow rate. Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and that would be for a long time, relatively. They show both the instantaneous rate and total water consumption. The ones I have seen do. These are the cheapest sub-meters on the market, for $50. (Sub-meters are used, for example, in individual apartments or in a boiler room for one boiler.) However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short time. Gremlins? Cold fusion, obviously. Do you think one thing caused the 17 kW and something else caused the bigger heat burst? Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables. There are not too many variables. The same 4 as ever: inlet temp, outlet temp, flow and input power. 20 minutes at this flow rate is plenty of time to be sure. However, there may be some heat going from the cell directly to the outlet thermocouple in this case, which would exaggerate the heat. That cannot be a problem for the 17 kW observed for of the test, before and after the transient. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Robert Leguillon wrote: I made the comment about someone flushing the toilet to demonstrate that some of the momentary power spikes could be caused by correlating drops in water pressure. I do not see how this could cause a 20-minute event. There was no continuous monitoring of flow rate, and this was not a fixed-displacement pump. They told me the flow rate was continuously monitored with a video camera. The meter keeps track of total consumption, as I said. There was no pump; just water pressure from the tap. That is very reliable. Water pressure does not change measurably at 1 L/s for 20 minutes when someone flushes a toilet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply acknowledge them and move on. Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he did not measure input power, when the report clearly states he did. Simple, clean and clear. He reported what he saw and based some speculations on that, without having thoroughly investigated, that's all. I see no evidence for that. What I'm aware of as problems are the steam quality measurement that wasn't, a minor thing, probably . . An imaginary thing. You believe it, he doesn't. Don't blame him because he disagrees with you, and do not assume he is wrong. You and others here have convinced yourselves there are problems where no problems exist. First you dream up something that might be wrong. Then you assume it is wrong. Then you assume EK did not address it -- when in most cases their report shows they did. You get carried away by your own imagination, in a dialog with yourself, the way Groucho Marx as president of Freedonia went to war: http://www.anyclip.com/movies/duck-soup/right-hand-of-good-fellowship/ *Rufus T. Firefly http://www.imdb.com/name/nm050/*: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses to accept. Why, the cheap four-flushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll never get away with it. [/Trentino enters/] *Rufus T. Firefly http://www.imdb.com/name/nm050/*: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh? [/slaps Trentino with his glove/] - Jed
[Vo]:PESN reports that Rossi 1 MW reactor may be self-sustaining
See new article. There are some statements in this article I have not heard, and some stuff I doubt is true: http://pesn.com/2011/07/21/9501874_Rossis_Self_Sustaining_One_Megawatt_Reactor/ I think it is more likely that it will require minimal input energy. The input to output ratio will be high. People here have described the ratio as 1:6. That it may be in many recent tests, but it has been much higher in some other tests, and it has been infinite in heat after death. There is no reason whatever to think it is stuck at 1:6. That is just a matter of engineering. I think someone here referred to the idea that the device is a sort of energy amplifier. That is, something that uses a flow of energy to tap into a source of energy and extract it at rate depending on input power. I do not think any cold fusion reactor fits this description. The connection between input energy and output heat is complicated and indirect. With the electrochemical cells, all else being equal, output is somewhat proportional to input because high input boosts high loading which in turn boosts the heat. But I would not call that amplification. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Seebeck effect in the E-Cat?
Steven V Johnson wrote: Nah! All'ya need is a Ford Model T crank. We're in luck, then. We have plenty of cranks in this field. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Here is my translation of several tidbits in a thread in the Italian web forum energeticambiente.it where Roy Virgilio (nicknamed here eroyka. He attended Saturday's LENR talk in Viareggio) will report as time passes news about Piantelli's work. Thanks for translating this. Perhaps Piantelli has been spurred into working more quickly and going commercial quickly by Rossi. Piantelli has been doing this research for a long time but he has not published many papers. He has been keeping a low profile. Maybe Rossi has nothing to do with it, and Piantelli happened to achieve commercial-level success now, and he would have gone public even without Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Piantelli news
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Actually Piantelli has at least 15 publications in which he is the main leading/author the others being Focardi and analyticians. And his two patents WO 1995/20816 and WO 2010/058288 are very professionally written. (two new patents coming soon) That's true. And yet he has a low profile in that he does not attend conferences and he and co-workers have been someone stand-offish toward other researchers -- other researchers say. He has a low profile compared to Rossi, but who doesn't? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:PESN reports that Rossi 1 MW reactor may be self-sustaining
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: With the electrochemical cells, all else being equal, output is somewhat proportional to input because high input boosts high loading which in turn boosts the heat. But I would not call that amplification. This is classic amplification. A small current controls a larger current. A small heat controls a larger heat. I do not think it controls it in the same direct sense a transistor current controls the total output of the device. It is indirect control at best, and often unreliable. Especially with electrochemical cells there is a time delay and in many cases increased power does not work at all. Increased power sets in motion a chain of events which sometimes -- but not always -- results in increased output. In some cases power increases on its own in the absence of any power. The point is, there is no way you can quote a meaningful ratio here, or extrapolate from the experimental devices to a commercial product and speculate what the final ratio may be. There is every reason to think it will be much higher than 1:6. - Jed
[Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
See: http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/viareggio-cold-fusion-conference-science-politics-and-an-italian-competitor/ QUOTE: 19.10 – Among the public Milly Moratti takes the word and states that there are clearly now experimental evidences of Cold Fusion. Now, for the one who do not know, Milli Moratti is the wife of Massimo Moratti, one of the richest man in Italy and owner of the Saras Petrol Refinery, The biggest in Italy and one of the biggest in Europe. That’s a 5,3 Billion Euro Company. She has money and the political knowledge. [I have never heard of this person.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Moratti - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: All true. Consider that Milli is somehow considered alternative, not always representative of the family. But yes when you talk about oil business in Italy their name is the first on the list. Well, I hope they take an active interest in cold fusion, and invest in it. I have long felt that the opposition to cold fusion is weaker than it seems. It is a mile wide and an inch deep as the expression goes. I felt that if we could just reach out to people, and break through the noise and distortions in the mass media, we could get more support. Support is likely to lead to funding. I realize there are powerful people opposed to the research, especially in places such as the DoE. Opponents have often torpedoed funding. They stopped the publication of the ACS book, which was later published here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedc.pdf People such as Robert Park have often pulled strings to prevent funding. Others in the establishment say nothing but they tacitly approve of his shenanigans. As Ed Storms says, Park would have no influence if powerful people did not agree with him. He is not the head of an agency. The only thing he has is influence in high places. There is nothing untoward about that. I wish I had such influence! The point is, this demonstrates that opposition to cold fusion is widespread. It is a mile wide, as I said. I have not conducted a public opinion poll of scientists but my impression is that the skeptics are correct in saying that the claims are largely disbelieved in the mainstream scientific community. (Wikipedia) This is because most people in the mainstream scientific community know nothing about the subject, so their views do not count. In any other academic debate no one would dispute this. No one would say, for example: Most American literary critics do not speak Japanese and have never heard of Natsume Soseki so his works have no literary value. They would say the people who know nothing about Japanese literature have no basis to discuss any aspect of it. The editors at most major journals despise cold fusion. It makes them angry, because they are convinced it is a fraud and a waste of funding. The plasma fusion people hate it the most. These opponents are all academic scientists. They despise cold fusion because they are certain it is theoretically impossible. Not because they fear it might be true! They are not such fools they would oppose something they think might be true. I do not know of anyone who opposes cold fusion because they have a vested interest in oil, solar energy, or some other source of energy. So I am not surprised that Milli Moratti is interested. If cold fusion starts to succeed in a big way, then I expect many people in the fossil fuel industry will begin to fear it. At present, I doubt any of them do. But they do not confide in me so I wouldn't know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: One interesting new electric E-Cat replication. This really puts final mark for steam depate, altough I still wait for modification where cooling water is continuously pumped. And steam temperature measured. Also it is good to see how much higher level Swedish discussion goes. Instead of plain and empty words they really does something concrete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsqSEw6Nti8sns=em I can't see much difference here between the 900 W and 2200 W of steam. I am sure there is a difference, but you cannot see it easily by visual observation against a black background. Both look about the same as the Krivit video (which is linked to this video). This is not a good method of measuring steam enthapy. They should try sparging it. They should use a larger, deeper bucket than the one shown in this video, and a shorter hose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I understand you passed along some information from an insider at Levi's second experiment and sent it to along to be included in an article here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm Some folks saying you skewed the data. I'm not saying you did. And I'm not saying you didn't. Of course you are saying that I did! You just said it. And it is a stupid thing to say. The numbers at LENR-CANR are there for everyone to see, including Rossi and Levi. There is a link to that page in Rossi's blog. As you know he filters and approves of every posting. He and the others would have told me if the numbers are wrong. You can compare my numbers to the NyTeknik report. They are pretty much the same. The tap water temperature is different. I do not know which is right. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jed Rothwell and Krivit's video
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: We, from the list, are well aware that Jed Rothwell has some inside information about the validity of the e-cat. Despite that, I haven't seen him clearly manifest about the feeble steam output of the hose in the e-cat video. It does not look feeble to me, but the video of the steam teakettles shows that you cannot easily tell the difference between 900 W and 2200 W, so visual observations of steam are useless for this discussion. The merit is not on the quality of the steam, even if has 0% liquid water, it still looks like a 800W. If it is 800 W of steam then there has to be excess, because that was the input power, and there have to be a lot of losses from the eCat body and the hose. You cannot have all of the input power magically transfer to the water without any losses. Anyway, I don't think anyone can say whether this is 800 W of steam or 3000 W. The 3 kW steam cleaner video I found looks about like this, too. To lose over 3000W from that hose, which measures 4m, the temperature of the steam should be way over 120C, the upper limit of the temperature it can handle, more like above 450C. I don't see where you get a 3000 W loss. So, Jed, what is your reason to think that video does not make the e-cat a fake device? There is not a shred of evidence the eCat is fake. Rossi's recent demonstrations did not prove the thing is real. They were only meant to show how it works, not to prove that it is real. But the previous tests proved it was real. Other tests of similar Ni-H devices prove that the Ni-H effect is real. There is no reason to doubt this device is real. A person might have lingering doubts because the claim is so dramatic, and because Rossi is such a flamboyant person who makes himself look bad. But in all the months of blather here I have not seen a single valid reason to doubt any claim made by Rossi. All the talk about magical wet steam and these visual comparisons of steam are nonsense. Steam at these temperatures and pressure is dry. The heat of vaporization of water is shown in any textbook, and the textbooks are correct. It is 540 cal/g at 1 atm. That's not exact but it is close enough. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: This is a qualitative test, actually cannot be used for an analysis or judgment. The enthalpy of the steam has to be measured continuously mixing the steam with a known flow of cold water and measuring the temperature of the mixture. Simple like ...that. I agree completely. Better yet, just use liquid flowing water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: producing low pressure steam is not the point, but to produce high pressure steam when E-Cats are scaled up and connected in serial and paraller for 1MW plant. I am pretty sure Rossi said the 1 MW reactor is for hot water. I have no idea what they need with so much hot water. You need that much in a large hotel, but not a factory. It is claimed by Defkalion that E-Cat is able to produce 414°C steam in high pressure. That is a different machine. However, it is slight drawback that E-Cat cannot yet go to any higher temperatures and pressures than 414°C. But this is more than enough for steam aircrafts! Really? I think higher temperatures would be recommended for steam powered aircraft. Steam turbo-prop airplanes for freight might work at that temperature. Regarding steam in general, Rossi's eCats have demonstrated low temperature steam at 1 atm. That is very useful. It is process steam used in various industrial applications with fabric, food processing and so on. I do get a sense that he likes to demonstrate them with steam rather than hot water because it shows that they can be used for high-temperature applications. For a long time, some people thought that cold fusion might not achieve high temperatures and it might only be useful for space heating. Especially Ni cold fusion. Rossi's demonstrations refute that. He has not demonstrated temperatures high enough to generate electricity, which would be 200°C and above. Achieving higher temperatures is only a matter of engineering as scientists say. It is a trivial problem compared to making an eCat in the first place. It is obvious that it can be done. Indeed, Defkalion says they have done it. I do not see any point to demonstrating higher temperatures with the rather simple, crude machines Rossi has demonstrated. It might be hazardous. With these machines 100°C at 1 atm proves the issue beyond any reasonable doubt, except to people who imagine that every physics and chemistry textbook published in the last 150 years is wrong, and the heat of vaporization of water is not 540 cal/g. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Low pressure steam is not good for its main potential use- to generate electricity. As I said, low temperature process steam is very useful for many applications. But I think the point that Rossi is trying make is this: 'Here is steam at 100°C. If I can make steam at this temperature, there is no reason to think I cannot make it at higher temperatures using pressurized equipment.' I don't see how anyone can argue with that. There is no reason to think the machine can reach 100°C but not 200°C or 400°C (the normal temperature range for fission steam generators). Regarding steam powered aircraft, there are some references to fission powered jet engines in my book. See chapter 18, footnote 173. Look up HTRE (heat transfer reactor experiment). See, for example: http://www.atomictourist.com/ebr.htm http://www.megazone.org/ANP/ These engines were actually tested. Not in an aircraft but on the ground. The working fluid (the fluid that expands to transfer energy) in this case is air. I think the primary loop heat exchange fluid was pressurized water. Air is a good choice for an airplane. http://www.megazone.org/ANP/tech.shtml With a ship, you have any amount of cooling fluid (ocean water) so it makes more sense to generate steam and then condense it. Modern cruise ships have Diesel electric engines. They are cooled with ocean water and the waste heat is also used for desalination to produce potable water. That's why those ships have swimming pools and you can shower as much as you like. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Damon Craig wrote: I saw the numbers at lenr-canr. How did you get them. Was it on a scrap of paper? By e-mail. Also, looking through my e-mail I see that I sent them off to Rossi and others, and they confirmed them. Plus you can compare them to the Nyteknik articles, as I said. The people doing the tests gave the same info to Lewan and to me. Whether these numbers are correct or not I cannot say, but I have no reason to doubt them. Neither do you. They are in reasonable agreement with the earlier steam tests for the same device. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Peter Gluck wrote: The issue is why Rossi prefers steam, when for demonstrating the potential of the E-cat- simply heating water is straigtforward. As I said, my feeling is that he prefers steam because it proves the thing works at high temperature. Also, it is a little more convenient to work with. The flow of water is lower and you can use a weight scale instead of a flow meter. As I have said here, flow meters tend to be a pain in the butt. Beyond that I cannot say why Rossi favors the steam approach. You could ask him but he probably will not respond. It is a shame he is not willing to do a better test heating water, but he has said emphatically several times that he will not do this. I doubt anyone can persuade him to change his mind. I gave up several weeks ago. Rossi does not agree that there is a problem with the steam tests. I think he is mostly right, and the problems have been greatly exaggerated. He does not agree that the instrumentation and documentation in all of these tests and in his recent trade-show style demonstrations has been second-rate. We disagree about that. Frankly, I think he is sloppy. * So are many other brilliant inventors. So are many professors. Just because a person is good at experiments and good at discovering things, it does follow that the person is neat, organized, or good at presenting the findings in a convincing fashion. Unfortunately, Rossi does not realize his own limitations. He does not see that the presentation and instrumentation was unconvincing, except to people like me who have done many similar tests and know how these things work. Apparently, Levi also does not see the problems, or he does not care whether people believe him or not. Or, perhaps he is busy. I, along with many others, advised these people about various ways that they could improve the instrumentation with things like better flow meters, redundant temperature sensors and so on. They evinced no interest in following our suggestions, publishing more information, or re-running the tests. It is regrettable. Fortunately, none of this matters. Rossi was able to transfer the knowledge to Defkalion. I hope they will present it to the public soon in more convincing tests and demonstrations, and I hope they will sell commercial units on schedule at the end of the year. I think they will. - Jed * Actually in this case, I am thinking of him in Japanese and the word that comes to mind is iikagen (いいかげん), meaning sloppy, remiss, perfunctory, half-baked, slapdash, and a bunch of other things less flattering, but I do not have them in mind: http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%84%E3%81%84%E3%81%8B%E3%81%92%E3%82%93/UTF-8/?ref=sa A multifaceted word, handy for parents: iikagen ni shinasai! -- That's enough out of you. (In other words, shut up!)
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Damon Craig wrote: Can you post it here, verbatum? Not the entire email, if you like, just the data. Nope. Even if I did, it would prove nothing, since anyone can write a few lines of ascii text and claim they came from an e-mail. You need to stop harping on this. Take it or leave it. The same data appeared in NyTeknik. I think I can speak for Lewan in saying that neither of us cares whether you believe us or not. As they say in Japanese: iikagen ni shinasai. (Actually in this case it would be iikagen ni shiro.) Lewan and I might be lying to you. Rossi and Levi might be lying to us. Believing this calls for a measure of faith in the whole gang of us. If you don't have that faith, too bad. There is no way I can give you more reassurance even if I wanted to, and I don't. I suggest you look at the totality of the evidence, including all those other Ni cold fusion experiments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Michele Comitini wrote: As I have said here, flow meters tend to be a pain in the butt. A water tank where to put outgoing water and get volume by measuring height. I don't think he would have many more problems with mass/volume water in liquid phase than he has with steam... At high power a tank fills up quickly. You have to keep measuring it and dumping it. You could not do this for a test lasting hours or days. You might take a sample every hour and extrapolate. In most case the flow rate will remain fairly stable. But this is not a good method. (There's that Japanese word again! This would be iikagen.) You need a flow meter to do this right. In the 18-hour test they reportedly did use a flow meter. I asked them what make and model. They never responded so I did not include this detail in my description. It is annoying that they did not respond. They reportedly used a conventional, off-the-shelf analog meter such as the water meter at your house. These things cost ~$50 and they are perfectly suited to this flow rate and volume. If they had just provided a few more solid details such as the make and model of the flow meter, the exact temperature of the tap water, and a graph of the inlet and outlet temperatures, the 18-hour test report would be a lot more convincing. I asked for more information, but only once or twice. I did not press the issue. As I see it, it is not my job to make their case for them. If they don't want to publish a convincing account of their work, that's their problem, not mine. I am pleased to assist people writing and editing papers when they ask me to. But LENR-CANR.org is a library, not a journal. I do not take sides. I do not endorse claims. I am as neutral as I can bring myself to be. LENR-CANR is nothing like Krivit's New Energy Times where he campaigns in favor of a theory or tries to make researchers he disagrees with such as McKubre look bad, with preposterous accusations. There are several researchers in this field that I personally think are nitwits. A few I suspect may be liars, and one or two seem to have a screw loose. But I would not name names or make accusations. I guess if I suspected Rossi and Levi are lying I would not upload the data from their tests. I would upload whatever papers they provide and let the reader decide. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Michele Comitini wrote: You need a flow meter to do this right. In the 18-hour test they reportedly did use a flow meter. I asked them what make and model. They never responded so I did not include this detail in my description. Flow meters have to be reliable: don't we all trust the gas pump? ... do we? ;-) Sure, the ones used for gas pumps and to water meters are especially reliable. In a test of several kilowatts you can use one of the latter and it should not be problem. The type I referred to as being a pain in the butt are laboratory grade high precision ones that typically measure less than 1 L/m. They produce good data but they frequently clog up and you have to monitor them. I may have uploaded this before, but here is a handy guide to laboratory grade flowmeters: http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/techinfo.asp?htmlfile=SelectingFlowmeter1.htm http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/techinfo.asp?htmlfile=SelectingFlowmeter2.htm - Jed
[Vo]:An example of bad publicity that Defkalion or Rossi could have prevented
See: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8140 This is a respectable, widely read website. This report is completely wrong, but it is easy to see how the author made these mistakes. Either Defkalion or Rossi could publish correct, complete, authoritative information to squelch this kind of thing. They have not done so. In my opinion, that makes it their fault that reports like this keep circulating in respectable forums. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Michele Comitini wrote: As we here see how trivial it is to setup absolutely convincing demonstration, then we have only one option left that Rossi does not want to do such thing! At least not before October. The question here is *WHY* he would not want to make such experiment? Rossi has done this experiment, and so have others. He may be doing this kind of experiment now, for all anyone knows. The question is: *WHY* does he not want to have an expert do this and then publish a detailed, authoritative report? To put it another way, why does he insist on holding demonstrations only, and no more tests? He is adamant about this. He told me this is because he does not have enough time to do tests. Perhaps that is true, but he has spent a few hours doing demonstrations for Krivit and others. In my opinion, it would have been better to spend 8 hours allowing independent experts to make measurements. (Or if not experts, me.) He would not have to devote every minute of those 8-hours to operating the machine. I believe that during the 18-hour test, he left it running unattended for many hours. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Lewan still believes this stuff, hu? You may be certain that if he or I knew of any reason to doubt these claims, we would publish these reasons. I have done this already, here: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints You may disagree with our evaluations. You may think there are valid reasons to doubt Rossi's claims. You might even suspect that he is a fraud. But you should not doubt from one moment that Lewan and I will report what we believe to be true at all times. Neither of us has staked our reputations on Rossi's claims. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Nope. Even if I did, it would prove nothing, since anyone can write a few lines of ascii text and claim they came from an e-mail. That is arguable at least if you use PGP or OpenPGP to sign your bytes. I think anyone that sends data on the public should use some kind of digital signature system, better if it is based on open standards. Let me state this a little more clearly. A little more categorically. I have uploaded 1,200 papers about cold fusion, including some by leading opponents claiming that cold fusion does not exist, and it is fraud. I have uploaded a long, detailed list of reasons to doubt that Rossi's results are real. (The Rossi hints.) I was one of the first one here to describe Rossi and his many personal foibles. I said clearly that these foibles make me nervous, and that I questioned his claims. Until the January demonstrations I was unwilling to believe these claims -- but of course I never disbelieve something without detailed knowledge and good reasons. I am skeptic in the original sense of the word. In short, I have demonstrated many times, in many ways, that I am willing to report the facts about cold fusion, even when those facts are bad for public relations. Even when they are setbacks that hurt the image of the field. I have demonstrated that I do not play favorites in disputes when it comes to uploading papers. I do not ever distort or hide technical facts. I have a proven track record. I have credibility. If Damon Craig does not trust me, and if he thinks I have deliberately uploaded fake data or exaggerated data into the news section, he can go to hell. I am not going to lift a finger or take any steps to reassure him that I am telling the truth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:History of gigantic boondoggle
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Not a one of these monstrosities has produced as much excess power as Rossi, even if his steam is dripping wet. Not true. All plasma fusion devices produce excess power. The PPPL produced about 10 MW for about 0.6 s (~6 MJ). As far as I know, none has ever produced more output than input, but that is true of many cold fusion experiments too. - Je
