Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the Experts that attended the demo. Some BIG names there. Hey, do me a favor. I agree that thermocouple (T-out) placement is critical and you can get almost any temp you want with incorrect placement. I also agree Rossi should have put the 'couple into the stream. But I don't quite see the trail of goop that tells you where it was originally before the insulation was moved. I hate to make work because this is an almost dead horse, but is there some way to make a clearer graphic about where the thermocouple tip was during the run with respect to the manifold and why? I see goop (probably silicon grease) on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it tells us. When this all went down, I mentioned that the way to do away with measurement errors was to use Joule heating to calibrate the entire system used to measure output energy. The believers poopoo'd it but it's still true that such methodology also should have been used by Rossi (and by everyone who promotes LENR).
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 22/01/2012 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the Experts that attended the demo. Some BIG names there. Hey, do me a favor. I agree that thermocouple (T-out) placement is critical and you can get almost any temp you want with incorrect placement. I also agree Rossi should have put the 'couple into the stream. But I don't quite see the trail of goop that tells you where it was originally before the insulation was moved. I hate to make work because this is an almost dead horse, but is there some way to make a clearer graphic about where the thermocouple tip was during the run with respect to the manifold and why? I see goop (probably silicon grease) on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it tells us. When this all went down, I mentioned that the way to do away with measurement errors was to use Joule heating to calibrate the entire system used to measure output energy. The believers poopoo'd it but it's still true that such methodology also should have been used by Rossi (and by everyone who promotes LENR). The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. Notice in the other 2 images it has been cleaned off the brass fitting. Not a good idea for it to be there too long as some sharp eyed observers may have questioned why that material was on that brass fitting. Can't have the observers asking awkward questions. Why was the bead placed there? Simple. Doing so would deliver a higher than reality Tout temperature, making the delta T look bigger than it really was and making the Ecat appear as if it was generating more energy than is was consuming. Horace got it right and was shouted down. Tells you something about the agendas of some who post here. I like a good mystery and being a natural skeptic, I enjoy a bit of digging. As for this not being relevant, I don't agree. It goes to the heart of a man who made multiple lies about the biggest event in LENR history, had others cover it up and has worked out how to generate good looking but still fraudulent data. Why does Rossi refuse independent testing? Because he knows the Ecat can't deliver what he claims it can. So he lies and creates bogus data. He may think he is buying time to make the home Ecat work as claimed. Maybe that is what he is doing and maybe he will eventually make it work. That does not alter that he has told really big and serious lies about the BBB, has been caught creating fabricated data and has damaged Lewans reputation as being an independent and unbiased reporter. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Not to beleaguer the point, but could you please show us this goo evidence? Simply upload edits to the images that call attention to the relevant goop...a simple red circle would do... Many of us here on Vortex analyzed, even over-analyzed, those photos. I'm not sure what temperature-conductive goop you're referring to. A also, be forewarned, even if there were conclusive evidence that the temperature at the secondary were completely corrupted and unreliable, you'll still be unable to convince many on this list (nodding in Mr. Rothwell's direction) that the treat is inconclusive. You see, some believe the fact that the E-Cat was hot-to-the-touch after the hours, and still sounded like some boiling was going on its first-principle proof that there was excess heat. No amount of calculations could diminish this belief. Many dead-horses were beaten in this pursuit. Please provide photos that may aid in analysis, but do not try to draw conclusions. Any dismissal of the October 6th data will be religiously derided, and you will, in all likelihood, be personally attacked... Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:54:47 +1030 From: shauntaylor...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog On 22/01/2012 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the Experts that attended the demo. Some BIG names there. Hey, do me a favor. I agree that thermocouple (T-out) placement is critical and you can get almost any temp you want with incorrect placement. I also agree Rossi should have put the 'couple into the stream. But I don't quite see the trail of goop that tells you where it was originally before the insulation was moved. I hate to make work because this is an almost dead horse, but is there some way to make a clearer graphic about where the thermocouple tip was during the run with respect to the manifold and why? I see goop (probably silicon grease) on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it tells us. When this all went down, I mentioned that the way to do away with measurement errors was to use Joule heating to calibrate the entire system used to measure output energy. The believers poopoo'd it but it's still true that such methodology also should have been used by Rossi (and by everyone who promotes LENR). The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. Notice in the other 2 images it has been cleaned off the brass fitting. Not a good idea for it to be there too long as some sharp eyed observers may have questioned why that material was on that brass fitting. Can't have the observers asking awkward questions. Why was the bead placed there? Simple. Doing so would deliver a higher than reality Tout temperature, making the delta T look bigger than it really was and making the Ecat appear as if it was generating more energy than is was consuming. Horace got it right and was shouted down. Tells you something about the agendas of some who post here. I like a good mystery and being a natural skeptic, I enjoy a bit of digging. As for this not being relevant, I don't agree. It goes to the heart of a man who made multiple lies about the biggest event in LENR history, had others cover it up and has worked out how to generate good looking but still fraudulent data. Why does Rossi refuse independent testing? Because he knows the Ecat can't deliver what he claims it can. So he lies and creates bogus data. He may think he is buying time to make the home Ecat work as claimed. Maybe that is what he is doing and maybe he will eventually make it work. That does not alter that he has told really big and serious lies about the BBB, has been caught creating fabricated data and has damaged Lewans reputation as being an independent and unbiased reporter. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Shaun Taylor sez: The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. Notice in the other 2 images it has been cleaned off the brass fitting. Not a good idea for it to be there too long as some sharp eyed observers may have questioned why that material was on that brass fitting. Can't have the observers asking awkward questions. Why was the bead placed there? Simple. Doing so would deliver a higher than reality Tout temperature, making the delta T look bigger than it really was and making the Ecat appear as if it was generating more energy than is was consuming. Shaun, you are in error. I have examined your pictures and like Mary, I do not see the significance of the goop you are referring to. BUT ... For the sake of discussion, I accept your premise that the goop was placed there so that Tout can be higher than it would have been. Then, explain to me why the Tout remained a flat line for 4 hours, if there is no active process occuring that is generating heat to keep that temp flat. People is that room, including Jed, verified that there was no input power to the heating element, and yet Tout was flat as a pancake, and even increased slightly. You can not explain how this anomaly could have happened no matter how much of verbal goop you use. Maybe, like Cude, you will claim that there is some heat storing media in there that is storing the heat and releasing it for 4 hours. If that were so, then explain why Tout slowly dropped after the Hydrogen was vented to end the test after 4 hours. If you invented a heat storing media that can be regulated to release heat in a controlled fashion for over 4 hours causing a flat Tout reading and then for some reason stops releasing the heat on cue after the hydrogen is vented; if you know of such material; by all means, apply for a patent for such a material, as that material would be worth millions in everyday practical applications. Like other pseudo-skeptics, you just accept the data that supports your preconcieved notions. You ignore the flat Tout data and you question the integrity and competence of many people much smarter than you who were in fact in that room personally witnessing the test. What makes you think you have come up with a reason that others have not thought of? Don't you think Jed would have forgotten to verify that there was no input power to the heating element? Come on, get real. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Hotmail jth...@hotmail.com wrote: People is that room, including Jed, verified that there was no input power to the heating element. . . No, I wasn't there. However people who were there did this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Hotmail jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Shaun, you are in error. I have examined your pictures and like Mary, I do not see the significance of the goop you are referring to. I didn't say I didn't see the significance-- I do. I am not that good at pattern recognition. I was asking for assistance in interpreting the pattern that suggests where the thermocouple head was and the trail of its withdrawal. I think I see it better now but not as well as Shaun does. I have little doubt that the thermocouple placement in the October 6 experiment was a calculated deception on the part of Rossi. Probably, it was one of several, including one inside the large E-cat, which created an illusion of excess power. Why else would Rossi change the design with almost no increase in power output from a device ten times or more the size of the original? Levi's notoriously undocumented and unrepeated experiment provided probably the largest power density surge of any E-cat ever claimed -130 kW, if you believe it, in a core about the size of a tennis ball. It's been downhill in power density every since. That's Rossi-progress, I guess.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Show me one test where Rossi did not run the event and truly allowed independent testers (NOT merely invited observers) to arrange, fit out and do the tests the way they determined they needed to be done? I can't. The people who have done these tests do not want me to upload the results to LENR-CANR.org. They have discussed them at various times. Mike McKubre showed a small sample of data from one group, in his slides here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHwhathappen.pdf I have heard from 2 other groups that tested independently. As I noted here in December, I also heard from a group visiting Defkalion, where they have independently replicated. Perhaps you do not believe me, or you do not believe my sources. In that case, the conversation has no place to go. There is nothing more to be said. Take what I say or leave it. As far as I know this has NEVER been done. Rossi was always in control. As far as you know, yes, but I know somewhat more than you do. If you have data that is truly independent, why has it not been published? Because the people who revealed it to me asked me not to publish it. They want to keep it secret for reasons relating to business, money, and the politics of cold fusion. Many, many cold fusion results have been kept secret over the years. Mainly because people who reveal positive results are likely to have their lives and careers destroyed. Their reputations are dragged through the mud; members of Congress demand their tax returns; they are fired or reassigned to menial jobs; and they are called lunatics and criminals in the mass media. Those are good reasons for not going public with results! You may not believe my sources, but you can easily verify that people who publish positive results are torn to shreds. There are many examples in the mass media and in the archives at LENR-CANR.org. People such as Robert Park who do this go around bragging about it. This is not secret suppression; it is bold and public. These people sincerely believe they are combating fraud and lunacy, and preserving the Honor of Science, so they have no reason to hide their activities. (Park is only one of many. I cite him because he is well known. There are dozens of others, such as Gai, who well known to everyone in this field.) Probably because it does not exist or the people that did the tests do not want to go public, which if that is the reason is an even bigger worry. They definitely do not want to go public, as I have said many times. It is nothing to worry about. As I said, this has often happened in cold fusion. Either way there is NO independent data on any Ecat that I can find. That is correct. You can't find the data, because the people who do the tests do not want the world to know what they are up to. I know why they are keeping a low profile. I know who is trying to stop them. I know what will happen to them if they go public prematurely. I would do the same thing if I were in their shoes. Probably, you would too, assuming you have a gram of common sense and you want to keep your job. Only data from Rossi orchestrated demonstrations. That is incorrect, as I said. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 12-01-22 04:24 AM, Shaun Taylor wrote: On 22/01/2012 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the Experts that attended the demo. Some BIG names there. I see goop (probably silicon grease) on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it tells us. The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. OK, seems like a reasonable conclusion. But there's something about it which bothers me. The brass fitting in question is actually /farther/ from the manifold body than the stainless nut which Horace (and others) had been assuming was the location of the thermocouple. What's more, the fitting in question is sufficiently far from the manifold body that it's not at all clear to me, at least, how much heat would actually have wicked to the thermocouple from the steam inlet. But be that as it may, given that this evidence seems to place the thermocouple farther from the heat source than had been previously assumed, I don't see how it makes things any worse for that test than they already were. So, what did I miss? (And by the way, Horace wasn't shouted down. Say, rather, he was shouted AT and I'll go along with it, but some folks agreed, some disagreed, and some just listened, as usual.)
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 12-01-22 02:45 AM, Shaun Taylor wrote: Horton saw through the 6 Oct data fraud and reported it. Did anyone here give Horton a High 5 Good Job Mate? NO. Now he appears to have gone away as no one listened to him. Horton mate, I agree with you. (a) It's Horace, not Horton (Horton was the one who heard a Who, Horace is the one in Alaska, please keep them straight). (b) Horace has a lot on his mind and bowed out for other reasons, as far as I can tell. I suspect he also finds analyzing something that turns out to be a fake to be a frustrating waste of time. It will not end there. The wangled web Rossi has attempted to weave, based on false data, is unravelling at a great rate of knots. Maybe. Maybe knot. My bet is we'll see nothing conclusive, positive or negative, in 2012, so make sure you've got a comfortable chair in which to wait for the denouement.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
At the risk of confusing the issue, is it possible that Rossi is trying to *reduce* the apparent temperature of the system? After seeing the video of the September test, and reading Eff Wiavkeef's comments here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg61747.html it seems obvious that the steam coming from the rubber hose is at a much lower pressure than the water/stem being released from the E-Cat at the end of the video. Therefore, there would have to be two different reservoirs of water, one in a sealed container at high pressure, and a separate one, at normal (1 bar) pressure. They would be physically isolated, but thermally connected (through some sort of heat exchanger). The high-pressure side could be heated to much more than 100 C (at 5 bar, 152 C., at 10 bar, 181 C.). The pump would push small amounts of water through the heat exchanger, which would draw heat from the high-pressure reservoir, converting it into steam. This would easily explain where the extra heat came from. It would also explain the long, forceful jet of water/steam coming out of the E-Cat then the high-pressure side was opened at the end of the video. Rossi would have to hide the fact that the system is actually holding a temperature much higher than the 100 C. he claims. Just throwing it out there. From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog On 12-01-22 04:24 AM, Shaun Taylor wrote: On 22/01/2012 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the Experts that attended the demo. Some BIG names there. I see goop (probably silicon grease) on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it tells us. The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. OK, seems like a reasonable conclusion. But there's something about it which bothers me. The brass fitting in question is actually farther from the manifold body than the stainless nut which Horace (and others) had been assuming was the location of the thermocouple. What's more, the fitting in question is sufficiently far from the manifold body that it's not at all clear to me, at least, how much heat would actually have wicked to the thermocouple from the steam inlet. But be that as it may, given that this evidence seems to place the thermocouple farther from the heat source than had been previously assumed, I don't see how it makes things any worse for that test than they already were. So, what did I miss? (And by the way, Horace wasn't shouted down. Say, rather, he was shouted AT and I'll go along with it, but some folks agreed, some disagreed, and some just listened, as usual.)
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has made tremendous contributions to humanity, so stop kvetching about his foibles. They make no difference. With respect to Rossi's own measure that commercial success matters above all else, he has yet to make any contributions humanity. Harry
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: It would also explain the long, forceful jet of water/steam coming out of the E-Cat then the high-pressure side was opened at the end of the video. Rossi would have to hide the fact that the system is actually holding a temperature much higher than the 100 C. he claims. Rossi and others measured the temperature and mass of the water dumped out of the reactor at the end, and reported it. So he is not hiding anything. Even with this crude calorimetry it is clear that total energy from input joule heating is far less than the output heat. This is a little like saying that Rossi is hiding the fact that the reactor is still there . . . by standing in front of the reactor and giving an interview on TV. That is not how most people hide an object. The reactor is big. You can't help noticing it. Not like the purloined letter. The water is hot because of cold fusion. In the heat after death test, the data shows it would have cooled long before 4 hours elapsed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
I wrote: Rossi and others measured the temperature and mass of the water dumped out of the reactor at the end, and reported it. . . . Of course it cools down to 100 deg C immediately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
There are serious questions about the setup of the temperature measurements on the various E-Cat tests. Just because Rossi's thermocouple said the water was at 100 C (or whatever it read) doesn't mean that was the actual temperature. According to Mats Lewan, Rossi provided and set up all the temperature instruments in all of the public tests (http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_emails.php). If you have any independent information that the water in the E-Cat (in particular for the September test I referenced) really was no hotter than approximately 100 C. I would love to see it. If you are relying on a thermocouple that Rossi provided and installed, I'm not inclined to accept the results from it. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: It would also explain the long, forceful jet of water/steam coming out of the E-Cat then the high-pressure side was opened at the end of the video. Rossi would have to hide the fact that the system is actually holding a temperature much higher than the 100 C. he claims. Rossi and others measured the temperature and mass of the water dumped out of the reactor at the end, and reported it. So he is not hiding anything. Even with this crude calorimetry it is clear that total energy from input joule heating is far less than the output heat. This is a little like saying that Rossi is hiding the fact that the reactor is still there . . . by standing in front of the reactor and giving an interview on TV. That is not how most people hide an object. The reactor is big. You can't help noticing it. Not like the purloined letter. The water is hot because of cold fusion. In the heat after death test, the data shows it would have cooled long before 4 hours elapsed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: There are serious questions about the setup of the temperature measurements on the various E-Cat tests. There are indeed. We discussed that at length here. Fortunately, as I pointed out several times, we can ignore all of the temperature readings. We can depend entirely on sense of touch and on the temperature readings Lewan took with his own thermocouple, at the reactor vessel surface and other points. Based on that alone the evidence for excess heat is overwhelming. We don't need Rossi's data, which is a good thing. Please review the archives for details. If you have any independent information that the water in the E-Cat (in particular for the September test I referenced) really was no hotter than approximately 100 C. I would love to see it. It was obviously hotter. That's why the water gushed out -- as you say. Rossi's internal TCs showed it was considerably hotter. No one disputes that. The cold fusion reaction only occurs at much higher temperatures, so of course the water in contact with the cell wall must have been hotter. The reactor is partly pressurized. It was above 100 deg C but that does not prove the heat came from joule heating. It came from cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it so. If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. It could even be boiling the small trickle of water being fed in by the pump during that time. Then when Rossi released the pressure by opening the valve at the end of the test, as you said, the water coming out would immediately cool to 100 C. The most obvious contradiction shown in the video is that modest stream of steam coming out of the hose at the top of the E-Cat, versus the robust stream of water and steam coming out of the valve at the bottom. It's obvious that they are not part of the same physical reservoir. If they were, the steam coming out of the top would be whipping the hose around like crazy. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog It was above 100 deg C but that does not prove the heat came from joule heating. It came from cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Blindingly obvious but the Rossi cultists will never believe it. They have FAITH. There's your problem. Oh dear, your Messiah has been a VERY naughty boy. CLAIMED TO HAVE THE FORMULA TO TURN WASTE INTO BLACK GOLD, ONLY MANAGED TO CAUSE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER Sentenced to eight years' magician of oil Andrea Rossi is expensive to the bankruptcy of the refinery Lacchiarella turned into a warehouse of toxic sewage tanks of Omar's 57 000 tons of toxic clean-up has cost more than thirty billion Claimed to have the formula to turn waste into black gold, only managed to cause an environmental disaster was sentenced to eight years' magician of oil is expensive to Andrea Rossi's bankruptcy refinery Lacchiarella turned into a warehouse of toxic sewage ONLY FIRMAMILANO - The 'last miracle Andrea Rossi, the self-styled inventor of the formula to turn toxic waste into fuel oil, was on the accounts of Omar in Lacchiarella, the' ex-refinery Petrol detected by the Dragon in which the 'entrepreneur had stored 57 000 tons of toxic sludge. The companies had paid tens of billions to get rid of waste, but the bankruptcy judge appointed after the collapse of Omar, in 'August' 95, he had found not one penny of assets. Only debts. Yesterday, for 'alchemist, came the day of reckoning: a sentence of 8 years in prison for fraudulent bankruptcy, the fine imposed by the court on summary of' preliminary hearing, Henry Tranfa. The 'survey initiated by the prosecutor Marco Maria Maiga had revealed a systematic process of bleeding the company's assets by Rossi by withdrawals from the accounts of the company for personal expenses (35 million pr agencies for the care of his image, 50 million for the mother-in-law), the cosmetics on the financial statements to hide losses. Even the 'purchase of the stake in the company, Great Service, an' other waste disposal company Pianfei (CN), was made for an amount disproportionate to the actual value. The masterpiece, however, was the sale of 'Lacchiarella area just two months before the bankruptcy decision of Omar: estimated 5 billion was transferred to the Trust Company Ltd. for 476 million of Cremona. All in bills of exchange, moreover, never paid. The prosecutor had also indicated Omar as a conduit for conducting illegal activities (Rossi is also investigated in Monza and Varese for tax and financial crimes as a holder of other group companies Petrol Dragon), in order to divert huge profits to 'foreign Already in '94, in fact, the capital of Omar was headed to London-based company controlled by Smith and Liechtenstein. The 'former magician of oil, arrested in Rome in late May after a year of hiding in the U.S., must pay 800 million immediately, and will be a civil case to establish the reimbursement to the Department of' Environment, the Region and the Municipality of Lacchiarella of over 30 billion disbursed to dispose of the Sea of poisons never become oil.Marco Castoldi NOTEXT Marco Castoldi Page 48 (October 20, 2000) - BBC From: John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it so. If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. It could even be boiling the small trickle of water being fed in by the pump during that time. Then when Rossi released the pressure by opening the valve at the end of the test, as you said, the water coming out would immediately cool to 100 C. The most obvious contradiction shown in the video is that modest stream of steam coming out of the hose at the top of the E-Cat, versus the robust stream of water and steam coming out of the valve at the bottom. It's obvious that they are not part of the same physical reservoir. If they were, the steam coming out of the top would be whipping the hose around like crazy. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog It was above 100 deg C but that does not prove the heat came from joule heating. It came from cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
You are not very bright are you Jed. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
This is were you clearly crossed the line. Get some air and do something else besides insulting people and repeating yourself! Wolf You are not very bright are you Jed. *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
+1 On 01/22/2012 07:45 PM, Wolf Fischer wrote: This is were you clearly crossed the line. Get some air and do something else besides insulting people and repeating yourself! Wolf You are not very bright are you Jed. *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Who supplied and positioned the thermocouple. If it was Rossi (as Mats Lewan claims was true for every test), then I don't believe it. Rossi has way too much to gain, and way too much history of lying and cheating for me to place any faith in anything he supplied to test his gadget. You have repeatedly used Lewan's statement that it *was* very hot to justify your claims of nuclear reactions. As long as the temperature was measured by someone credible (i.e. NOT Rossi) and with trustworthy equipment (i.e. NOT supplied by Rossi) then I would accept that. But as long as Rossi gets to run tests, they are worthless. If he ever allows his device to be tested as a black box by someone credible, such as the University of Bologna, I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion of the E-Cat. But I'm pretty sure that Rossi won't ever do that. And all of your anonymous experts and secret tests mean nothing. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
test passed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
I think that the device would explode long before it reached 10 bars. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Oh I am sorry. I forgot that Rossi is such an honest man that he would of course have put the temperature probe inside the pressure cooker Duh! From: Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog +1 On 01/22/2012 07:45 PM, Wolf Fischer wrote: This is were you clearly crossed the line. Get some air and do something else besides insulting people and repeating yourself! Wolf You are not very bright are you Jed. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 23/01/2012 6:08 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 12-01-22 04:24 AM, Shaun Taylor wrote: The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. OK, seems like a reasonable conclusion. But there's something about it which bothers me. The brass fitting in question is actually /farther/ from the manifold body than the stainless nut which Horace (and others) had been assuming was the location of the thermocouple. What's more, the fitting in question is sufficiently far from the manifold body that it's not at all clear to me, at least, how much heat would actually have wicked to the thermocouple from the steam inlet. But be that as it may, given that this evidence seems to place the thermocouple farther from the heat source than had been previously assumed, I don't see how it makes things any worse for that test than they already were. So, what did I miss? (And by the way, Horace wasn't shouted down. Say, rather, he was shouted AT and I'll go along with it, but some folks agreed, some disagreed, and some just listened, as usual.) The bead head was placed on the surface of the brass adapter. On that surface the bead would be more exposed the surface conducted heat from the very hot manifold. It was not measuring the flowing water temperature but a mixture of the cooling effect of the flowing water on the heated brass fitting. If there was no flowing water in the secondary, the surface of that brass fitting would be close to that of the steam inlet temperature (reported as being 110 deg C). It is only the effect of heat transfer into the water, inside the brass fitting that would have lowered the temperature of the outside surface of the brass fitting. I suggest there was a tappable range of surface temperatures along the surface of the brass fitting. Hotter at the Stainless nut end and cooler at the hose adapter fitting end. Easy then to adjust the final bead head position to deliver the desired Tout temperature and the desired delta T. It is a smoking gun proof that Rossi manipulated the Tout data to show an acceptable COP. Horace was right, The 6 Oct data are crap. Just what you would expect of a serial liar who has no respect for the truth of his actions nor for the truth of the data he presents. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Agreed, wholeheartedly.. There was a thermocouple in the E-Cat and the highest I remember it ever getting was ~108degC. Anyone who claims that it was anywhere near 150 needs to provide the proof. I don't think even Yugo would try to float that asinine suggestion. or would you Mary? -Mark From: Wolf Fischer [mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog This is were you clearly crossed the line. Get some air and do something else besides insulting people and repeating yourself! Wolf You are not very bright are you Jed. _ From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Did they stick the probe up the Ecat's bum? From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 11:56 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Agreed, wholeheartedly…. There was a thermocouple in the E-Cat and the highest I remember it ever getting was ~108degC. Anyone who claims that it was anywhere near 150 needs to provide the proof. I don’t think even Yugo would try to float that asinine suggestion… or would you Mary? -Mark From:Wolf Fischer [mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog This is were you clearly crossed the line. Get some air and do something else besides insulting people and repeating yourself! Wolf You are not very bright are you Jed. From:Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
That may be. I reviewed the picture with the cover off, and the cover doesn't appear as substantial as I remembered. But there sure are a lot of bolts to hold it down. Far more than would be needed if it were only pressurized to slightly more than normal (as Rossi claims. And, I suspect any device we might examine that *does* handle 10 bars has a considerable safety margin built in. I don't know that Rossi would worry about running his device without the typical safety margins, especially if it covered up some trick he was relying on to make his gadget appear to work. From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog I think that the device would explode long before it reached 10 bars. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
You (and people like you) really dont get it. This mailing list is about people discussing topics of different kinds, among them, e.g., LENR as well as Rossi. As long as there is doubt (on either side of the coin, i.e., either pro or contra) there have to be discussions, i.e., people allow other people to think and interpret the things they see and tell the rest how they see it and what they make of it. This is already the point, where you are being lost, as your behavior clearly shows! I could also translate this to such a simple concepts as freedom of speech and live and let live that you don't seem to get. The way that you try to push your opinions (because it is nothing more than that despite your saying otherwise) down our throats is just disgusting. I (and I think, although I myself am pretty new to this group, can speak for the rest here) have absolutely nothing against people who think otherwise on any topic, on the contrary! It is especially this process of at first disagreeing on a topic, then each person making their point with _constructive arguments_, then again letting the other person react to your arguments and so on, which creates a productive and constructive environment for new thoughts and theories that could actually be able to explain everything that is going on (because rarely a topic is just black and white!). In contrast to that, you stop at your very first thought (no matter if it is positive or negative, I am adressing both kind of people), you just leave absolutely no room for any kind of interpretation / doubt / whatsoever. And therefore its just not science. Its just some stupid blather which doesn't do anyone any good (except probably your self-inflated egoes). So just get off here, we really really really (have I said really?) have read what your thoughts are, more often than we actually care. And, believe it or not: We took notice! And, again, believe it or not: Most of the people already took notice a long time before you arrived here. Wolf Oh I am sorry. I forgot that Rossi is such an honest man that he would of course have put the temperature probe inside the pressure cooker Duh! *From:* Andre Blum andre_vor...@blums.nl *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, 22 January 2012 11:48 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog +1 On 01/22/2012 07:45 PM, Wolf Fischer wrote: This is were you clearly crossed the line. Get some air and do something else besides insulting people and repeating yourself! Wolf You are not very bright are you Jed. *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com mailto:john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 23/01/2012 6:38 AM, John Milstone wrote: At the risk of confusing the issue, is it possible that Rossi is trying to *reduce* the apparent temperature of the system? After seeing the video of the September test, and reading Eff Wiavkeef's comments here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg61747.html it seems obvious that the steam coming from the rubber hose is at a much lower pressure than the water/stem being released from the E-Cat at the end of the video. Therefore, there would have to be two different reservoirs of water, one in a sealed container at high pressure, and a separate one, at normal (1 bar) pressure. They would be physically isolated, but thermally connected (through some sort of heat exchanger). The high-pressure side could be heated to much more than 100 C (at 5 bar, 152 C., at 10 bar, 181 C.). The pump would push small amounts of water through the heat exchanger, which would draw heat from the high-pressure reservoir, converting it into steam. This would easily explain where the extra heat came from. It would also explain the long, forceful jet of water/steam coming out of the E-Cat then the high-pressure side was opened at the end of the video. Rossi would have to hide the fact that the system is actually holding a temperature much higher than the 100 C. he claims. Just throwing it out there. I'm sure Rossi has a bag of tricks he can apply to give the illusion of any Ecat performance he desires. He has had years to prefect his bag of tricks. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
During the September test (with the large steam release in question) the temperature exceeded 133C... You can see it in the video. During the October 6th test, the temperature reaches 123.8C at the onset of self-sustaining mode, and it drops to 103C by the end of the test. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 From: zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:56:40 -0800 Agreed, wholeheartedly…. There was a thermocouple in the E-Cat and the highest I remember it ever getting was ~108degC. Anyone who claims that it was anywhere near 150 needs to provide the proof. I don’t think even Yugo would try to float that asinine suggestion… or would you Mary? -Mark From: Wolf Fischer [mailto:wolffisc...@gmx.de] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 3:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog This is were you clearly crossed the line. Get some air and do something else besides insulting people and repeating yourself! Wolf You are not very bright are you Jed. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: If the water was at 5 to 10 bars, it could easily be heated to 150 - 180 C. in the preheating process. At that point, being wrapped up in that massive insulation blanket, it would stay over 100 C for hours. There was a TC in the reactor. It measured over 100 deg C, but not 150 to 180 deg C. Also, in that scenario, the surface temperature of the reactor would be very hot when the internal temperature reached 180 deg C,then it would gradually cool down. That is not in evidence. The surface temperature was measured several times. It did not vary much. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Thx Robert, I stand corrected. From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 4:25 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog During the September test (with the large steam release in question) the temperature exceeded 133C... You can see it in the video. During the October 6th test, the temperature reaches 123.8C at the onset of self-sustaining mode, and it drops to 103C by the end of the test. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+Octo ber+6+%28pdf%29
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: You have repeatedly used Lewan's statement that it *was* very hot to justify your claims of nuclear reactions. Please note: I said the surface temperature did not *vary much*. That means the internal temperature could not have been ~180 deg C later falling to ~100 deg C. The surface temperature would drop by a similar ratio. It did not. As long as the temperature was measured by someone credible (i.e. NOT Rossi) and with trustworthy equipment (i.e. NOT supplied by Rossi) then I would accept that. As I noted, the temperature was measured by Lewan. I suggest you read these messages more carefully. Over and out. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 23/01/2012 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: As I noted, the temperature was measured by Lewan. Who is now known to have covered up multiple Rossi lies and to have accepted the BS Tout bead placement in the 6 Oct test. So please explain why Lewans has credibility in your eyes? Are you saying Lewans supplied the thermocouples and data logger, placed them HIMSELF and then independent to Rossi's gear, recorded the temperatures? As far as I can find out, that never happened so why suggest it did? We now know Rossi is a self admitted liar, from the 6 Oct images we know he placed the Tout bead to create an artificially higher temperature than reality. Lewans, Levi, Focardi and probably others never called Rossi out on his It's Gone lie nor on the I went there to install it lie. Where is their credibility now? To me it does not exist. They are just more Rossi flamed and burnt at the stake causalities in Rossi's campaign of continual lies and false or the Cat ate it (the missing 18 hour Levi data) lack of data. Plus not one scrap of independently Ecat tested data. Total vacuum of real data here. And vacuums suck. There is NO credibility here. NONE. This is nothing more than a very shaky house of cards, built on crumbling foundations of lies and false data. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: As I noted, the temperature was measured by Lewan. Who is now known to have covered up multiple Rossi lies . . . Not to my knowledge, he hasn't. Are you saying Lewans supplied the thermocouples and data logger, placed them HIMSELF and then independent to Rossi's gear, recorded the temperatures? I believe he held the probe from a handheld TC meter on the surface, and noted the temperature. I've done that. It works fine to within a few degrees. We now know Rossi is a self admitted liar, from the 6 Oct images we know he placed the Tout bead to create an artificially higher temperature than reality. You think you know that, but I suppose you are wrong. Rossi's campaign of continual lies and false or the Cat ate it (the missing 18 hour Levi data) lack of data. . . . I do not think you should blame Rossi for the fact that Levi has not published data. Rossi has many attributes but he does not strike me as a Svengali capable of controlling the actions of physics professors. There is NO credibility here. NONE. This is nothing more than a very shaky house of cards, built on crumbling foundations of lies and false data. Okay, we got it. Thank you for expressing your views on this matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 23/01/2012 1:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com mailto:shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: We now know Rossi is a self admitted liar, from the 6 Oct images we know he placed the Tout bead to create an artificially higher temperature than reality. You think you know that, but I suppose you are wrong. Rossi said he checked the Tout placement added no bias to the real water temperature. He did this by comparing a probe in the outflow water as against the probe on the brass fitting. Ok fair enough you say. EXCEPT if that was so then why did the need to place the Tout probe inside the manifold assembly? He claimed to have directly measured the outflow water temperature. So why not leave that probe in place and clearly show he was directly measuring the outflow water temperature? Instead he chose to use the Tout probe attached via thermal transfer material to the brass fitting and measure it's surface temperature instead of the out-flowing water stream. Sorry Jed but this is an act of intentional manipulation of the Tout data to create a false impression of the power the Ecat was generating. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
For what it's worth, here are the relevant links I have on Rossi's claims of having been working with the University of Bologna... January 21, 2011, Rossi says, We made an important test with the University of Bologna, with whom we are going to make a 1 year research program also. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=5#comment-20077) March 3, 2011, Rossi says, We are now making a RD work with the University of Bologna. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=10#comment-26136) June 18, 2011, Rossi says, In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47001) November 5, 2011, the University of Bologna releases a press release that specifically denies any involvement with any test conducted by Rossi. (http://www.magazine.unibo.it/Magazine/Notizie/2011/11/05/Lecat_lUnivesita_di_Bologna_non_e_coinvolta.htm) December 1, 2011, Dario Braga, the director of scientific research at the University of Bologna, states that the deadline for the contract with Rossi is mid-January and that an extension was unlikely. (http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/01/university-of-bologna-clarifies-relationship-with-rossi/) (P.S. I hope I have the return address issue sorted out!)
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 21/01/2012 9:28 PM, John Milstone wrote: For what it's worth, here are the relevant links I have on Rossi's claims of having been working with the University of Bologna... June 18, 2011, Rossi says, In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47001) Dry steam with really high performance Rossi said Well when Krivit made his visit and video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E on 14 June 2011, the steam was very, very, VERY wet and not coming out in the volume or speed one would expect from turning 7 kg of water into steam every hour. 11:30 in the video. Something must have really, really, REALLY changed in 4 days. Maybe Rossi thinks Prof Levi and Prof Focardi working privately in his laboratory is the same thing as the University of Bologna doing the work. That was until the University made it VERY clear they had never officially done any work for Rossi and this would not happen until he paid them what he had agreed to pay them. As we know, that did not happen. So Rossi is caught out in yet another lie. Yea I know, just another translation error. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Uh Shaun, wet steam is physical impossibility. All water boilers on Earth produce 99-95 dry steam, including Krivit's water boiler. You need to go high pressures and high steam velocities in order to produce stable wet steam. So please, at least you should get the basic physics right. —Jouni On Jan 21, 2012 1:25 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/01/2012 9:28 PM, John Milstone wrote: For what it's worth, here are the relevant links I have on Rossi's claims of having been working with the University of Bologna... June 18, 2011, Rossi says, In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough. (http://www.journal-of-**nuclear-physics.com/?p=360** cpage=21#comment-47001http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47001 ) Dry steam with really high performance Rossi said Well when Krivit made his visit and video http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=m-8QdVwY98Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98Eon 14 June 2011, the steam was very, very, VERY wet and not coming out in the volume or speed one would expect from turning 7 kg of water into steam every hour. 11:30 in the video. Something must have really, really, REALLY changed in 4 days. Maybe Rossi thinks Prof Levi and Prof Focardi working privately in his laboratory is the same thing as the University of Bologna doing the work. That was until the University made it VERY clear they had never officially done any work for Rossi and this would not happen until he paid them what he had agreed to pay them. As we know, that did not happen. So Rossi is caught out in yet another lie. Yea I know, just another translation error. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
I suppose my coffee maker could be producing dry steam. But it's producing very small quantities of it, and that small amount of steam pushes the vast majority of the liquid water up and over the reservoir and into the coffee grounds. Or am I missing something? From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Uh Shaun, wet steam is physical impossibility. All water boilers on Earth produce 99-95 dry steam, including Krivit's water boiler. You need to go high pressures and high steam velocities in order to produce stable wet steam. So please, at least you should get the basic physics right. —Jouni On Jan 21, 2012 1:25 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/01/2012 9:28 PM, John Milstone wrote: For what it's worth, here are the relevant links I have on Rossi's claims of having been working with the University of Bologna... June 18, 2011, Rossi says, In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47001) Dry steam with really high performance Rossi said Well when Krivit made his visit and video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E on 14 June 2011, the steam was very, very, VERY wet and not coming out in the volume or speed one would expect from turning 7 kg of water into steam every hour. 11:30 in the video. Something must have really, really, REALLY changed in 4 days. Maybe Rossi thinks Prof Levi and Prof Focardi working privately in his laboratory is the same thing as the University of Bologna doing the work. That was until the University made it VERY clear they had never officially done any work for Rossi and this would not happen until he paid them what he had agreed to pay them. As we know, that did not happen. So Rossi is caught out in yet another lie. Yea I know, just another translation error. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
A good example. I think it comes down to whether all of the water that we see at the outlet, in whatever form, would have had to been converted to water vapour at some stage in order to get there, requiring its latent heat of vapourisation. In the case of my, and John's coffee maker, not all of it needs to be vapourised. In other systems it would, even if some subsequently recondenses before it gets to the outlet because of heat loss. Nigel On 21/01/2012 13:03, John Milstone wrote: I suppose my coffee maker could be producing dry steam. But it's producing very small quantities of it, and that small amount of steam pushes the vast majority of the liquid water up and over the reservoir and into the coffee grounds. Or am I missing something? **
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
some proposition that you may comment... maybe I'm naive. Whether as some says, heat is stored in thermal mass, the steam generated should be superheated, thus dry ? if steam/water is under high pressure to store or avoid boiling, when it exit it should be superheated, thus dry ? wet steam need either a careful mix of water and generated superheated steam, or generation from not so hot, not so powerful thermal source (like undersized boiler), at atmospheric pressure also one cannot see dry steam ? it is invisible ? you only see the droplets, or at most the condensation in cold air, far away, if not so superheated. thus the only possibility of fake according to critical comments is that the electric heater make the water slowly boil. please correct me, but with correction! 2012/1/21 John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com I suppose my coffee maker could be producing dry steam. But it's producing very small quantities of it, and that small amount of steam pushes the vast majority of the liquid water up and over the reservoir and into the coffee grounds. Or am I missing something? -- *From:* Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:55 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Uh Shaun, wet steam is physical impossibility. All water boilers on Earth produce 99-95 dry steam, including Krivit's water boiler. You need to go high pressures and high steam velocities in order to produce stable wet steam. So please, at least you should get the basic physics right. —Jouni On Jan 21, 2012 1:25 PM, Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/01/2012 9:28 PM, John Milstone wrote: For what it's worth, here are the relevant links I have on Rossi's claims of having been working with the University of Bologna... June 18, 2011, Rossi says, In these days, together with the University of Bologna and with my Customers, we have made tests measuring not only dry steam, but also with really , really, REALLY high performances: they know, I know, we know. That’s enough. (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47001) Dry steam with really high performance Rossi said Well when Krivit made his visit and video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E on 14 June 2011, the steam was very, very, VERY wet and not coming out in the volume or speed one would expect from turning 7 kg of water into steam every hour. 11:30 in the video. Something must have really, really, REALLY changed in 4 days. Maybe Rossi thinks Prof Levi and Prof Focardi working privately in his laboratory is the same thing as the University of Bologna doing the work. That was until the University made it VERY clear they had never officially done any work for Rossi and this would not happen until he paid them what he had agreed to pay them. As we know, that did not happen. So Rossi is caught out in yet another lie. Yea I know, just another translation error. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 21/01/2012 11:25 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Uh Shaun, wet steam is physical impossibility. All water boilers on Earth produce 99-95 dry steam, including Krivit's water boiler. You need to go high pressures and high steam velocities in order to produce stable wet steam. So please, at least you should get the basic physics right. —Jouni What came out of that black pipe was not dry steam. No way mate. It had a high moisture content, like what comes out of a wall paper or paint steamer that is designed to moisten wall paper or old paint so it can be easily removed. Just not when I try to remove my old paint. Give me a good old Black and Decker Aussie made HEAT gun any day. Love to see the paint blistering. From what I know and I'm not an expert, you can't see dry steam as it contains no moisture. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
I think what Shaun means is the “percolator effect” and not wet steam, per se. It seems these two are being merged together, when there is a distinction. Actually, the percolator effect (mass transfer via gas entrainment) is FAR more misleading than wet steam would be, if you are looking for the enormity of potential errors. Basically – Rossi’s present “success” is tied completely to being able to turn off the input power for many hours. Without that, which is in fact excellent proof of a massive anomaly (but unquantifiable as to the level of gain) – there is little that is valid in his testing, based only on water flow. There is still the nagging question of “was the power turned off or not?” due to the genset still running - but any practical person would have to conclude there is a good case for a gigantic thermal anomaly for many hours. Yet there is no real proof and any “customer” who thinks there was satisfactory proof for a large investment - is not getting good technical assistance. From: Jouni Valkonen Uh Shaun, wet steam is physical impossibility. All water boilers on Earth produce 99-95 dry steam, including Krivit's water boiler. You need to go high pressures and high steam velocities in order to produce stable wet steam. So please, at least you should get the basic physics right. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
If you trust Rossi, then you might as well accept the numbers presented by the unknown consultant of the secret company. If you don't trust Rossi, then there is absolutely nothing from the October 28th test to indicate that the MegaWatt E-Cat even got slightly warm (AFAIK), with or without the generator running. Did any of the guests notice any radiant heat from either the shipping container or the big heat exchanger? Did anyone notice atmospheric heat distortion immediately above the heat exchanger? I don't recall reading any such things (but I could have missed something). It's a shame that no one thought to bring an infrared heat sensor (the type used to detect heat escaping from doors and windows in a home). That might have provided very useful data on just how hot the various parts of the device actually got, even though Rossi prevented any direct measurements. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog There is still the nagging question of “was the power turned off or not?” due to the genset still running - but any practical person would have to conclude there is a good case for a gigantic thermal anomaly for many hours. Yet there is no real proof and any “customer” who thinks there was satisfactory proof for a large investment - is not getting good technical assistance.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 22/01/2012 12:56 AM, John Milstone wrote: If you trust Rossi, then you might as well accept the numbers presented by the unknown consultant of the secret company. You mean the secret company in the US that Rossi claimed to have visited to install the plant but somehow it slipped his mind that the plant had never actually moved? If you don't trust Rossi, then there is absolutely nothing from the October 28th test to indicate that the MegaWatt E-Cat even got slightly warm (AFAIK), with or without the generator running. Did any of the guests notice any radiant heat from either the shipping container or the big heat exchanger? Did anyone notice atmospheric heat distortion immediately above the heat exchanger? I don't recall reading any such things (but I could have missed something). Neither did I ever read such a statement. 450 kWs of heat to get rid of would be like having 450 x 1 kW bar radiators packed tight in several layers inside the wooden box. The walls of the wooden box would have been warm to the touch. Yes warm indeed. It's a shame that no one thought to bring an infrared heat sensor (the type used to detect heat escaping from doors and windows in a home). That might have provided very useful data on just how hot the various parts of the device actually got, even though Rossi prevented any direct measurements. I like your thinking. Excellent idea. I have a video camera with a night time IR mode. Now all I need is a working 1 MW E-Cat plant to film. Oops forgot. There are NO working 1 MW E-Cat plants. The one in Rossi's factory is in bits. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
That is absurd – John. Do you have any depth of understanding on this test, since you seem to be coming in after all of these details have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum ? These were not merely “guests” dragged in off the campus - Dozens of PhD level scientists were there. Are they all in on this with Rossi? Did they take his word for it? I think not. Your assertion is laughable really. A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, Levi does not inspire confidence – but take a closer look at the “guests”. BTW your “return” setting for this group is in error as it defaults to your personal address From: John Milstone If you trust Rossi, then you might as well accept the numbers presented by the unknown consultant of the secret company. If you don't trust Rossi, then there is absolutely nothing from the October 28th test to indicate that the MegaWatt E-Cat even got slightly warm (AFAIK), with or without the generator running. Did any of the guests notice any radiant heat from either the shipping container or the big heat exchanger? Did anyone notice atmospheric heat distortion immediately above the heat exchanger? I don't recall reading any such things (but I could have missed something). It's a shame that no one thought to bring an infrared heat sensor (the type used to detect heat escaping from doors and windows in a home). That might have provided very useful data on just how hot the various parts of the device actually got, even though Rossi prevented any direct measurements. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog There is still the nagging question of “was the power turned off or not?” due to the genset still running - but any practical person would have to conclude there is a good case for a gigantic thermal anomaly for many hours. Yet there is no real proof and any “customer” who thinks there was satisfactory proof for a large investment - is not getting good technical assistance. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Jones, I am confused. I thought you considered the 1MW as a fake given your criticisms over the non delivery of the 1MW generator. 2012/1/21 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net That is absurd – John. Do you have any depth of understanding on this test, since you seem to be coming in after all of these details have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum ? These were not merely “guests” dragged in off the campus - Dozens of PhD level scientists were there. Are they all in on this with Rossi? Did they take his word for it? I think not. Your assertion is laughable really. A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, Levi does not inspire confidence – but take a closer look at the “guests”. BTW your “return” setting for this group is in error as it defaults to your personal address From: John Milstone If you trust Rossi, then you might as well accept the numbers presented by the unknown consultant of the secret company. If you don't trust Rossi, then there is absolutely nothing from the October 28th test to indicate that the MegaWatt E-Cat even got slightly warm (AFAIK), with or without the generator running. Did any of the guests notice any radiant heat from either the shipping container or the big heat exchanger? Did anyone notice atmospheric heat distortion immediately above the heat exchanger? I don't recall reading any such things (but I could have missed something). It's a shame that no one thought to bring an infrared heat sensor (the type used to detect heat escaping from doors and windows in a home). That might have provided very useful data on just how hot the various parts of the device actually got, even though Rossi prevented any direct measurements. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog There is still the nagging question of “was the power turned off or not?” due to the genset still running - but any practical person would have to conclude there is a good case for a gigantic thermal anomaly for many hours. Yet there is no real proof and any “customer” who thinks there was satisfactory proof for a large investment - is not getting good technical assistance. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 2012-01-21 11:58, John Milstone wrote: For what it's worth, here are the relevant links I have on Rossi's claims of having been working with the University of Bologna... [...] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-1EvJK5PQ January 12, 2012 Rossi says, We are organizing a work with two universities. I prefer not to say which ones because we like to work in peace. [...] Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 22/01/2012 1:13 AM, Jones Beene wrote: That is absurd – John. Do you have any depth of understanding on this test, since you seem to be coming in after all of these details have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum ? These were not merely “guests” dragged in off the campus - Dozens of PhD level scientists were there. Are they all in on this with Rossi? Did they take his word for it? I think not. Your assertion is laughable really. A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, Levi does not inspire confidence – but take a closer look at the “guests”. I have searched but failed to find one report of the heat that should have been generated by the 2 fan driven heat exchangers. While there were people walking around the plant as it was warming up, when it was in full operation Rossi only allowed 1 or 2 people at a time to get near the plant and even then he restricted what they could do. The only data was that supplied by the consultant. We never saw his detailed report, just the hand written version Rossi created. Jones most of the people there wanted this to be real. Even PhD scientists are human and do break their rules of skepticism first, then measurements as accurate as you can get them and finally critical and peer review analysis of the measured data and claimed effects. No way did that happen during the 28 Oct Dog and Pony show. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Daniel, let me be clear on this: We need to make a clear distinction between the scientific anomaly, which is valid, and Rossi's business plan, which seems to have evolved into an economic scam, built on top of a massive thermal anomaly that was never ready for commercialization. From: Daniel Jones, I am confused. I thought you considered the 1MW as a fake given your criticisms over the non delivery of the 1MW generator. That is absurd - John. Do you have any depth of understanding on this test, since you seem to be coming in after all of these details have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum ? These were not merely guests dragged in off the campus - Dozens of PhD level scientists were there. Are they all in on this with Rossi? Did they take his word for it? I think not. Your assertion is laughable really. A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, Levi does not inspire confidence - but take a closer look at the guests. BTW your return setting for this group is in error as it defaults to your personal address From: John Milstone If you trust Rossi, then you might as well accept the numbers presented by the unknown consultant of the secret company. If you don't trust Rossi, then there is absolutely nothing from the October 28th test to indicate that the MegaWatt E-Cat even got slightly warm (AFAIK), with or without the generator running. Did any of the guests notice any radiant heat from either the shipping container or the big heat exchanger? Did anyone notice atmospheric heat distortion immediately above the heat exchanger? I don't recall reading any such things (but I could have missed something). It's a shame that no one thought to bring an infrared heat sensor (the type used to detect heat escaping from doors and windows in a home). That might have provided very useful data on just how hot the various parts of the device actually got, even though Rossi prevented any direct measurements. From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 9:00 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog There is still the nagging question of was the power turned off or not? due to the genset still running - but any practical person would have to conclude there is a good case for a gigantic thermal anomaly for many hours. Yet there is no real proof and any customer who thinks there was satisfactory proof for a large investment - is not getting good technical assistance. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:58 AM, John Milstone john_sw_orla...@yahoo.com wrote: (P.S. I hope I have the return address issue sorted out!) Yeppers! T
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Jones Beene wrote: A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, Levi does not inspire confidence - but take a closer look at the guests. That misses one (the) major point about magic shows. When you go to Las Vegas or Moscow to see a magician make a white tiger disappear, you know its fake. Everybody in the audience knows its just a trick - even the journalists. They all wonder how its done but nobody believes the tiger really disappeared. Its just an illusion. Now consider the same setup - only this time some serious scientists have claimed to have invented a substance that makes objects disappear some twenty odd years before. Since then there has been great controversy about it. And while most of the scientific community has come round to not believing a word of it, a relatively small fraction of them ponders on, experimenting, reporting results (though none of them has ever seen more than a vague glimmer of fading opacity) and feels in general that there is something - if only we could nail what it is. Now the same magician performs the same trick but he calls himself Doctor of some kind, performs his tricks in an old shipping container rather than a circus and has even built a cute little theory about how his wonder works. He can't really explain it because its all jumbled together from previous work done by others - but he doesn't have to. Whenever it gets inconsistent, he just shows a secretive face and claims he really HAS found what everybody else couldn't - only he unfortunately can't tell them (for apparent reasons). When he performs his trick with the disappearing tiger, they will ALL believe it - PhD or not. And the same is true for Rossi and people he invites to his demos. They believe it because they want to. They believe it because they are scientists interested (and probably believing) in cold fusion and not police officers from an anti fraud unit or con artists or magicians who would know what to suspect and what to look out for. Claiming their word is any kind of proof or even encouragement is ridiculous. Send Bob Park or Lubos Motl to one of Rossi's demos - and see what they say.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: That is absurd – John. Do you have any depth of understanding on this test, since you seem to be coming in after all of these details have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum ? I'm not sure what there is to understand about the October 28 test. The data were taken in secret. None of the illustrious observers saw how it was done. None of them know how much power was introduced by the generator, none of them know how much power *or* energy the device produced during the test. The customer isn't known. Nothing is known about the colonel. None of the illustrious guests wrote anything convincing about this event. It has only been hyped in the usual brainless web sites that promote UFO's, Obama's trip to Mars, magnetic free energy motors and cars that run on water as the only fuel. In addition, several of the guest scientists have had substantial prior involvement with Rossi including Levi, Stremmenos, and Focardi. Assuming these three are honest, that they have not held Rossi's feet to the fire about doing independent tests or performing a properly documented and controlled repeat of Levi's experiment of last February, or adequately explaining in public the ridiculous contradictions between Rossi and Defkalion's claims regarding their breakup and the reasons for it. Either the credibility or the honesty of those three has to be considered questionable, IMO. As for Lewan, Kullander and Essen, they obviously are not as knowledgeable in making thermal and fluid flow measurements as they think they are. And they are too polite and not willing to confront Rossi about the inadequacy of the dog and pony show he presented on October 28. That doesn't mean they believed him. IIRC, even they expressed doubts, as noted in the NyTeknik report, and remarked that nobody should be certain that Rossi's technology is real until it has been independently tested. These were not merely “guests” dragged in off the campus - Dozens of PhD level scientists were there. Are they all in on this with Rossi? Did they take his word for it? What favorable and credible reports did any of the people attending, other than credulous fools like Sterling Allan and people who work with Rossi -- what did any of the independent and reliable scientists write about the October 28 demonstration? Maybe I missed it but I didn't see a single one that said that the demonstration was well done and convincing. A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, Levi does not inspire confidence – but take a closer look at the “guests”. It didn't fool the guests that matter, for example the AP reporter. Rossi uses the same tools as stage magic, IMO. But that doesn't mean he's putting on a good magic show. In fact, it's a pretty lousy one in that a lot of people aren't buying the illusion.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Maybe Rossi thinks Prof Levi and Prof Focardi working privately in his laboratory is the same thing as the University of Bologna doing the work. That was until the University made it VERY clear they had never officially done any work for Rossi and this would not happen until he paid them what he had agreed to pay them. As we know, that did not happen. It's a common tactic of those with something to sell to play up the professional associations of others who are involved in some way, which is clearly what is being done here. This one of several details that suggest that anything that Rossi says should be taken with a grain of salt. But I think this particular point was established a long time ago.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common tactic of those with something to sell to play up the professional associations of others who are involved in some way, which is clearly what is being done here. If it is clearly being done, then why has Rossi stiffed the university? Why did he break contract? How will this enhance his public image? What you say makes no sense. Rossi is not making himself look good. This is yet another public relations disaster for him. If he is trying to attract investors -- as you claim -- why does he go around breaking contracts with universities and picking public arguments with people? If he has no device in the first place, why would he even make the arrangement in the first place? The only reason he wanted research at the university was so that he could benefit from their discoveries. That's why he insisted it be kept secret. Apparently he now feels he does not need them. When Rossi decides he does not need you, he cuts you loose immediately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, Levi does not inspire confidence – but take a closer look at the “guests”. I also fail to see the point of Rossi's pulling off a successful magic show, unless he's just flying blind and improvising at this point and is hoping to pull off a hail mary. Even if he had wanted to, the E-Cat story is not something he has been able to shield from third-party observation, at least from a distance. If he's hoping to set up a large racket and take in illicit gain, how long does he hope to keep it going? Or is it that he's not thinking that far into the future? Unless he's very shortsighted, I don't see the motive. To my eyes, there are a number of details that make it hard to put much enthusiasm into the magic show explanation. Two alternative explanations I find more promising are: 1. He believes in what he's doing on some level, but he's making it out to be more established than it really is in the hope that he can get over some technological barriers he's running into in the near future. 2. His technology is sound at a basic level, and his personal behavior is serving as a serious distraction.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I also fail to see the point of Rossi's pulling off a successful magic show, unless he's just flying blind and improvising at this point and is hoping to pull off a hail mary. She does not need an ego boost. T
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
If it is clearly being done, then why has Rossi stiffed the university? Why did he break contract? How will this enhance his public image? I have no explanation for why Rossi would have broken the contract. There is a lot that I don't understand about this story. It would hardly enhance his public image. What you say makes no sense. Rossi is not making himself look good. This is yet another public relations disaster for him. If he is trying to attract investors -- as you claim -- why does he go around breaking contracts with universities and picking public arguments with people? If he has no device in the first place, why would he even make the arrangement in the first place? The links in the helpful email that John Milstone put together paint a fairly convincing picture of someone trying to say that the University of Bologna is researching the E-Cat when, at least up till now, it's been members of its faculty, acting on their own behalf. I don't claim that Rossi is attempting to attract investors, although I don't rule this out. I think on a more general level he's trying to sell E-Cats, which is something that I think we can all agree on. If you're trying to sell E-Cats, now or sometime in the medium term, it's more impressive to have a university do independent research of your product than members of its faculty working individually. The only reason he wanted research at the university was so that he could benefit from their discoveries. That's why he insisted it be kept secret. Apparently he now feels he does not need them. When Rossi decides he does not need you, he cuts you loose immediately. I don't disagree with this statement in principle. I may have overstated how clearly it was that Rossi was playing up professional affiliations. But I think the burden of proof now lies in demonstrating that he wasn't. Stepping back a little, I don't claim that any of this is rational behavior or makes sense from some strategic perspective. I don't think we are required to assume completely rational behavior.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common tactic of those with something to sell to play up the professional associations of others who are involved in some way, which is clearly what is being done here. If it is clearly being done, then why has Rossi stiffed the university? You don't suppose that it's because the university would want a device and some secret sauce to run it with? And he can't give them that because they don't really work? Occam would approve of that conclusion.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: A good magic show can fool a few journalists and grad students and yes, Levi does not inspire confidence – but take a closer look at the “guests”. I also fail to see the point of Rossi's pulling off a successful magic show, unless he's just flying blind and improvising at this point and is hoping to pull off a hail mary. Even if he had wanted to, the E-Cat story is not something he has been able to shield from third-party observation, at least from a distance. If he's hoping to set up a large racket and take in illicit gain, how long does he hope to keep it going? Or is it that he's not thinking that far into the future? Unless he's very shortsighted, I don't see the motive. Again, look at Steorn, Dennis Lee, Carl Tilley, Bedini, Bearden, Mark Goldes, and don't forget the bigger and more effective scams like many I'd have to look up 'cause I don't offhand remember, and of course the newest and biggest, Solyndra. The usual motive and method is to scam the inventors early on when they fund the initial venture and sign NDA's and disclaimers of responsibility and best effort agreements and more legalese. Lots of money to be made that way and you can bet Rossi had plenty of volunteers (and still does).
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I have no explanation for why Rossi would have broken the contract. There is a lot that I don't understand about this story. It would hardly enhance his public image. You've noticed! I know why he broke it. I told you. It is a rational business decision. If it suits his needs, he will reinstate the contract next week. The links in the helpful email that John Milstone put together paint a fairly convincing picture . . . Not even slightly convincing. Completely off the mark. I don't claim that Rossi is attempting to attract investors, although I don't rule this out. No, you can't rule it out. You can't rule it in, either. You do not know the first thing about Rossi, or his intentions, or his plans. Believe me, you do not have the slightest idea what he plans. I suspect he himself does not know what he will do next. He is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma as Churchill said of the Soviet Union. I have been dealing with him for over a year, and I know people who have dealt with him far longer. None of them understands him. We do not understand him, but the general the outlines are clear. He is an inventor and businessman trying to make money. Not a scientist. He has no interest in academic kudos. He does not give a damn what anyone else thinks. He does what he thinks is best, and he often changes his mind. He often says things which are so contradictory, ridiculous, and so obviously untrue, I would not call them lies so much as stream-of-consciousness blather, like someone in a waking dream. His English is often poor. If that bothers you, I suggest you ignore him. If you're trying to sell E-Cats, now or sometime in the medium term, it's more impressive to have a university do independent research of your product than members of its faculty working individually. I agree, but Rossi does not think so. Apparently he now feels he does not need them. When Rossi decides he does not need you, he cuts you loose immediately. I don't disagree with this statement in principle. I may have overstated how clearly it was that Rossi was playing up professional affiliations. You did not just overstate it. Your assertion makes no sense in view of the fact that Rossi often denigrates academics and professionals of all stripes. He calls them snakes. He says Celani and others are only trying to steal from him. That is *not* how a person talks when he is trying to ingratiate himself with academic professors, or make himself look good. I have never seen Rossi do anything to make himself look good. On the contrary, most of what he does makes him look dreadful! So your hypothesis that he is engaged in PR seems far-fetched to me. I think he is doing exactly what he claims, which is inventing and trying to grab as much money as he can. I wish him all success. I don't think we are required to assume completely rational behavior. Indeed not. Rationality is not his strong suit. But he is a more rational than he seems. He is also a lot smarter than he seems. Kind of self destructive at times, I think. Anyway, it is his business. He can conduct it any way he wants. It is a free country. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 22/01/2012 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Anyway, it is his business. He can conduct it any way he wants. It is a free country. - Jed Rossi is a liar. Stop defending a liar saying he has the same rights to conduct business as an honest man. Would you do business with a man that you knew to be a liar? Why trust anything he says, including his test data? If his Ecat works as claimed, Rossi would have no reason to lie. Don't you understand that? He lies because the Ecat does not do what he claims it does. Lewans now claims to have known the BBB never shipped and following that knowledge knew Rossi was lying when he stated several time he was attending the secret customer's US install site. So at least twice Lewans knew Rossi statements abut the BBB were lies but said nothing and apparently turned his head away. If I was Lewans editor, I would be having a long talk with the man about his credibility and how he has damaged the publications credibility. Lewans will not be the last causality of Rossi's lies. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: We do not understand him, but the general the outlines are clear. He is an inventor and businessman trying to make money. Not a scientist. He has no interest in academic kudos. He does not give a damn what anyone else thinks. He does what he thinks is best, and he often changes his mind. He often says things which are so contradictory, ridiculous, and so obviously untrue, I would not call them lies so much as stream-of-consciousness blather, like someone in a waking dream. His English is often poor. If that bothers you, I suggest you ignore him. Andrea Rossi's statements don't bother me. I've been trying to make the point that they seem to be somewhat benign in the larger picture, and that any rate complaints about his contradicting himself or making misleading statements are no new revelation. I have no reason to believe that his lack of fluency in English explains all of the confusion, but I also have no reason at this point to think that he's being devious in some deep sense. I disagree with you entirely that the links in John Milstone's email were off the mark in giving reason to think that Rossi was making misleading statements, and I think others will agree with me here. But I also think that Rossi's intentions are mostly irrelevant, for the very good points that you have brought up elsewhere. You've said in a different post something to the effect that it is the science involved here that is what is really interesting, and I also agree with you on this point.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi is a liar. Stop defending a liar saying he has the same rights to conduct business as an honest man. There is no law against dishonesty in business, as long as you do not cross certain lines. Mostly arbitrary lines. If liars did not have the right to do business, Wall Street would not exist. Would you do business with a man that you knew to be a liar? Not me, no. I have said that dozens of times. Why trust anything he says, including his test data? I do not trust his test data. I trust other people's test data taken from his machines, and independent replications of them. Since these other people are honest, that proves he is honest, too. You have naive notions about life if you think liars are not allowed to do business, and if you think that we have to judge experimental results based on the personality or proclivities of researchers. Many researchers are scoundrels. Many are liars, cheats or plagiarists. If we had to depend on their honor, science would not work. That is one of the reasons replication is essential. If his Ecat works as claimed, Rossi would have no reason to lie. I can think of many reasons why he should lie! He has no intellectual property. He can't get any either, given the political opposition to this research at the Patent Office, and Rossi's lack of knowledge about how the thing works. He lies because the Ecat does not do what he claims it does. You have that backward. He lies to make it look like it does *not* work. Lewans now claims to have known the BBB never shipped and following that knowledge knew Rossi was lying when he stated several time he was attending the secret customer's US install site. . . . For all anyone knows he has been to the secret site. Lewan and I do not follow Rossi around. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Every man has the right to choose what he does and how he does it . I dont like to lie , but I dont tell the whole story everytime , and when I feel someone wants to take something off me without paying for it , I dont mind leading them down the garden path either . Right or wrong if I had The secret to the riddle I dont think I would have shared anything until I was able to control it and reap my rewards first . Which would probably mean the technology would take twice as long to get out there amongst the masses Its the replicators of the world that really establish most new products Maybe Rossi has done us all a favour , despite his personality or half truths Pete Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:46:04 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Shaun Taylor shauntaylor...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi is a liar. Stop defending a liar saying he has the same rights to conduct business as an honest man. There is no law against dishonesty in business, as long as you do not cross certain lines. Mostly arbitrary lines. If liars did not have the right to do business, Wall Street would not exist. Would you do business with a man that you knew to be a liar? Not me, no. I have said that dozens of times. Why trust anything he says, including his test data? I do not trust his test data. I trust other people's test data taken from his machines, and independent replications of them. Since these other people are honest, that proves he is honest, too. You have naive notions about life if you think liars are not allowed to do business, and if you think that we have to judge experimental results based on the personality or proclivities of researchers. Many researchers are scoundrels. Many are liars, cheats or plagiarists. If we had to depend on their honor, science would not work. That is one of the reasons replication is essential. If his Ecat works as claimed, Rossi would have no reason to lie. I can think of many reasons why he should lie! He has no intellectual property. He can't get any either, given the political opposition to this research at the Patent Office, and Rossi's lack of knowledge about how the thing works. He lies because the Ecat does not do what he claims it does. You have that backward. He lies to make it look like it does not work. Lewans now claims to have known the BBB never shipped and following that knowledge knew Rossi was lying when he stated several time he was attending the secret customer's US install site. . . . For all anyone knows he has been to the secret site. Lewan and I do not follow Rossi around. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I have no reason to believe that his lack of fluency in English explains all of the confusion, but I also have no reason at this point to think that he's being devious in some deep sense. He is often devious about things that do not matter. He drives me nuts doing that. He is not devious about technical claims, as far as I know, but often contradictory. Probably confused. Developing new technology is inherently confusing. He is not an effective liar. No one I know is fooled by him about anything of importance. Take, for example, all this talk about whether he shipped the reactor not. What difference does that make? Who cares? I am not a stockholder, or Rossi's banker. He does not owe me any money, so why should I give a damn whether he has sold 1 reactor, 13 reactors, or zero reactors? It is none of my business! It not the business of any person contributing to this forum. None one of you has *any right to know anything*about Rossi's sales or shipping status. Stop your childish umbrage! If he tells you about his sales, he might be lying. Corporations large and small often lie about their sales. It is the most common thing imaginable. As I said, you would have to shut down all of Wall Street if such lies were against the law. It is childish nonsense to get worked up about this. Unless you happen to be the one he is suppose to be shipping goods to! You people remind me of 1950s movie star fans who idolize the stars and think the stars have some sort of obligation to live out their fantasies, or to live a moral, upstanding life. Rossi owes you nothing. He can lie though his teeth to you all day long if he feels like it. Many people do that. Listen to talk radio. Listen to any politician. If you don't want to hear what he has to say, don't listen. But don't act like a self-righteous ninny who expects Rossi to be a Boy Scout. Don't act like a nun who has walked into a classroom to find a students having sex -- oh so horrified to learn that people do that!!! Rossi is a hard-boiled businessman from Italy, where the Mafia has its fingers in every pie. He has been in trouble countless times. What kind of person would you expect him to be? Lots of businessmen are like him. Lots of inventors too, notably Edison. They are not saints. Rossi has made tremendous contributions to humanity, so stop kvetching about his foibles. They make no difference. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 22/01/2012 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: For all anyone knows he has been to the secret site. Lewan and I do not follow Rossi around. - Jed Rossi claimed to have gone there to do the INSTALL of the BBB which was in fact sitting, torn apart, in his factory. As Lewans knew of the It is gone lie, he also knew the I went there to do the install statement was also lie. Either way Lewans should have come clean. Now his credibility is gone as he knowingly covered up multiple Rossi lies. How many more people's reputations will Rossi destroy with his lies? If you believe Rossi is lying because the Ecat works and he is trying to make people believe it does not work, you are a fool. Rossi lies because the Ecat doesn't work as well as he claims. There is absolutely no evidence to support your theory. Rossi is a proven liar at the highest level of credibility. He has no verifiable independent test data. He has refused to allow independent testing to obtain the same because he claims they may learn of his secret sauce. It is very easy to do the independent testing, in Rossi's presence, so this is not a valid excuse to avoid independent testing. He lies because it doesn't work as well as he claims. QED. Show me one test where Rossi did not run the event and truly allowed independent testers (NOT merely invited observers) to arrange, fit out and do the tests the way they determined they needed to be done? As far as I know this has NEVER been done. Rossi was always in control. Others could only observed what he did. If you have data that is truly independent, why has it not been published? Probably because it does not exist or the people that did the tests do not want to go public, which if that is the reason is an even bigger worry. Either way there is NO independent data on any Ecat that I can find. Only data from Rossi orchestrated demonstrations. As we know he is a serial liar and lied about what should have been the biggest event in the history of LENR, so any data from any test he orchestrated is simply not believable, no matter who the invited observer may be. Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 22/01/2012 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi has made tremendous contributions to humanity, so stop kvetching about his foibles. They make no difference. - Jed Spew, chuck, vomit. What tremendous contribution to humanity? Jed the man is a serial LIAR. He lied about the shipping of the BBB. He lied about doing the installs at the customers US site. Lewans knew Rossi lied about the BBB and covered it up. He is now spoiled meat. Who's head is next to fall? Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
Rossi got just short of a year's worth of borrowed credibility from his lies about involvement with the University of Bologna. I documented at least three times (the earliest was last January) when Rossi claimed he was *currently* working with the U of B. I've read numerous statements by Rossi supporters that Rossi *must* be legitimate, since no con man would allow his device to be independently tested. They then used Rossi's statements, along with numerous supporting statements from Rossi's supporters, that such testing *was* occurring to justify their claim. Then, when it came time to actually allow that testing, Rossi abruptly changed his mind, pulling the rug out from under everyone who had believed and repeated his lies. Where did you get the notion that Rossi was insisting that it be kept secret?!? The contract was common knowledge. The only part that was secret until recently was the fact that Rossi refused to activate it by paying them the required funds. Rossi boasted about having the contract, and he even claimed that he had sold his house to pay for it. From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: It's a common tactic of those with something to sell to play up the professional associations of others who are involved in some way, which is clearly what is being done here. If it is clearly being done, then why has Rossi stiffed the university? Why did he break contract? How will this enhance his public image? What you say makes no sense. Rossi is not making himself look good. This is yet another public relations disaster for him. If he is trying to attract investors -- as you claim -- why does he go around breaking contracts with universities and picking public arguments with people? If he has no device in the first place, why would he even make the arrangement in the first place? The only reason he wanted research at the university was so that he could benefit from their discoveries. That's why he insisted it be kept secret. Apparently he now feels he does not need them. When Rossi decides he does not need you, he cuts you loose immediately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
The most reasonable answer to why he signed the contract was to gain borrow the credibility of the University. Note that is was commonly reported that at least some of his tests were conducted *at* the U of B, which as far as I know is false. Note that Rossi waited until after the big finale of his year-long publicity stunt to dump the contract. The most reasonable answer to why he broke the contract was because he had already milked dry the bogus respectability it brought him for free, so why pay for it? There's also the possibility that it won't actually work in actual independent tests. From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog I have no explanation for why Rossi would have broken the contract. There is a lot that I don't understand about this story. It would hardly enhance his public image.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
The most reasonable answer to why he broke the contract was because he had already milked dry the bogus respectability it brought him for free, so why pay for it? There's also the possibility that it won't actually work in actual independent tests. I agree that this is a plausible explanation. But the degrees of freedom are so large here and the actual data so sparse, that you could use lateral thinking to generate 200 other theories for why he broke the contract as well. If you have to make a business decision, then fine, run with this explanation and decide that you would in no wise invest. But if you're free to sit back and watch developments unfold, as we all are right now, I don't see a convincing reason to latch onto this explanation before the evidence demands it.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 22/01/2012 4:29 PM, John Milstone wrote: There's also the possibility that it won't actually work in actual independent tests. You got that right. In spades! Shaun
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not trust his test data. I trust other people's test data taken from his machines, and independent replications of them. How in the world do you know that? Which other people? Where? When? How? Can we interview them? If not, why not? Did they publish? If not, why not? And don't use lack of patent protection as a cover-- it won't wash.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On 22/01/2012 5:54 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I do not trust his test data. I trust other people's test data taken from his machines, and independent replications of them. How in the world do you know that? Which other people? Where? When? How? Can we interview them? If not, why not? Did they publish? If not, why not? And don't use lack of patent protection as a cover-- it won't wash. Mary I agree, especially as I just showed how Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and probably faked it in all the other tests. Rossi has nothing but lies and faked data. His supporter Lewans was shot down in flames by Rossi's own words. He has no concern about who he damages. I suggest the 2 Swedish guys are ducking for cover. So far the results are Rossi is a self admitted big time serial liar. Lewans knew of the multiple big time lies and did nothing. Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the Experts that attended the demo. Some BIG names there. Horton saw through the 6 Oct data fraud and reported it. Did anyone here give Horton a High 5 Good Job Mate? NO. Now he appears to have gone away as no one listened to him. Horton mate, I agree with you. It will not end there. The wangled web Rossi has attempted to weave, based on false data, is unravelling at a great rate of knots. Shaun
RE: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
The only reference that I could find on ecat.com to dispensation of university testing was more than two months ago, before Rossi seemed to have disavowed it: Q: Will you do more public tests of the E-cat? Asked by Ecat.com 2 months ago A: 1- we made all the tests we had to make 2- no more public tests will be made, the phase of public tests is over for us 3- we now are no more making test-prototypes, but industrial products 4- the tests of our E-Cats from now on will be made exclusively by our Customers 5- all our next work with Universities (Bologna, Uppsala) will not be public, but restricted and confidential Research and Development activity. by Andrea Rossi 2 months ago Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:23:13 -0800 From: maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog Italo R. January 19th, 2012 at 3:36 PM Dear Ing. Rossi, I have been told that in your official E-Cat website http://ecat.com/ there is the important news that two Universities are already studying and testing your E-Cats. May I ask you if it is real? Maybe those Universities are in Bologna and Uppsala? I apologize to be so indiscreet but, as you know, we all are excited and follow every fact of E-Cats!! Kind regards, Italo R. Interestingly Rossi published this but did not respond at all so far. Anyone know if the University of Bologna will extend Rossi's contract to test and characterize his technology? It was supposed to expire about now if not funded.
Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The only reference that I could find on ecat.com to dispensation of university testing was more than two months ago, before Rossi seemed to have disavowed it:SNIP Interesting bit from ecat.com: “We have some kind of fusion inside but I do not think this is the main energy source” http://ecat.com/news/andrea-rossi-interview-ecat-cold-fusion I think it may be a squirrel. On a treadmill.
