Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
No shit Shurlock. I can project as well as you. What's your game? If you don't know, I will tell you. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:49 PM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: I find your statements bewildering. Projection of internal state onto external reality.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: No, increased pressure is caused by the pump (I have little idea how much it will cause, but my guess is that this isn't enough to raise the pressure to atmospheric), and by steam pressure from boiling. Even a little boiled water will significantly raise the pressure. This leads to a possible analysis. [...] from an on-line calculator for steam flow through an orifice. I also found an on-line calculator that calculates the pressure difference to produce a given flow of steam through conduits of given diameter and so on. For steam (unlike water) the pressure difference turns out to be most sensitive to the number and geometry of the various fittings, like expanders, reducers, and elbows, all of which are present, and give rise to an overall K-factor. But there is no category for 2-phase flow, even if we knew the ratio, and so even with detailed knowledge of the geometry, I think the only purpose such an analysis serves is to make a slightly elevated boiling point plausible. Any attempt to extract enthalpy information from such slight elevations, is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, at least without careful calibrations. And why bother? Rossi could either decrease the flow rate so the steam was dry and well above the boiling point (by tens of degrees), or increase the flow rate to prevent any phase change, and these speculations would be unnecessary.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You're just guessing. The pressure at 30 cm of water is enough to raise the bp by about a degree. The chimney height can explain it.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Will I be misunderstood if I don't say this was said with sarcasm and exageration? Actually, the best head of water you can get require both the device is and exit are on the roof. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's be more careful, everyone! At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. Probably not, but it's significant. First of all, what are the starting conditions? Before the heating is started, the hose is full of water, that water is flowing. From the Krivit video, perhaps from others, the elevation of the hose above the floor can be estimated. (For those who haven't looked, the hose is not in a sink, it is in a sink drain, i.e, a hole in the wall where a sink might be installed. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. That is, to put it mildly, pucky. The elevation of the hose, to this level, is irrelevant. The weight of the water in the hose will reduce the pressure, were it not for the flow. Steam will *allow* increased flow of the water. The pressure in the chamber will be *reduced* by the water head from the difference in elevation between the chamber and the water level in the bucket. With no boiling, there is a contrary effect, increased pressure caused by the pump with its fixed flow rate. That flow rate through the outlet orifice will increase the pressure in the chamber. Only a little, I think. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here! There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. Seems confusion can be caused with very little effort, or maybe even no effort at all. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. There isn't any sink. The hose in the Krivit demo goes down to the floor, then rises to a sink drain. That's maybe 35 cm from the floor, a very rough estimate. Since the sink drain is below the table where the E-Cat is sitting, this will reduce the pressure in the E-Cat, not increase it. No, what increases the pressure in the E-Cat would be two sources: pump pressure and steam pressure. Stop the pump, and with no boiling, the pressure in an E-Cat with an outlet hose full of water, leading down to a drain pipe, will be below atmospheric pressure, by the relevant head. If you were to open the steam escape valve at that point, air would flow in, not out. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.comjoshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You're just guessing. The pressure at 30 cm of water is enough to raise the bp by about a degree. The chimney height can explain it. Well, when I wasn't thinking carefully, I thought so. That would be true if the top of the chimney were open to the air, and the chimney was full of water. Which wouldn't stay that way, the water would flow out the drain! I'm amazed at how many stupid mistakes we can make. Babes in the woods. No, increased pressure is caused by the pump (I have little idea how much it will cause, but my guess is that this isn't enough to raise the pressure to atmospheric), and by steam pressure from boiling. Even a little boiled water will significantly raise the pressure. This leads to a possible analysis. Has anyone done this? Basically, it is possible to come up with a ball-park estimate of pressure from the data on chamber temperature. The accuracy of the thermometer is lousy, in fact, absent a pressure measurement. However, assuming elevated temperature of one degree C., due to elevated pressure, doing this in a preliminary way, inadequately checked, I came up with a pressure of 1.04 bar. If that's overpressureof 40 millibars, that would lead to a 40 lb/hr flow of steam through a half-inch orifice, which is 5 g/sec., from an on-line calculator for steam flow through an orifice. that's remarkable, but is quite imprecise. This approach directly calculates flow rate from some assumptions: 1. temperature of boiling water in the chamber of 100.6 degrees, vs. in an open pot at 99.6 degrees, same probe but unknown specific care in calibration. 2. Orifice of one-half inch. (It's probably less than that, the hose is 15 mm ID? The orifice must be smaller, and walls are probably more than 1.3 mm thick. Any figures from fittings?) 3. Head of water in hose was neglected. That head would increase flow because the differential pressure
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I find your statements bewildering. . On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's be more careful, everyone! At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. Probably not, but it's significant. First of all, what are the starting conditions? Before the heating is started, the hose is full of water, that water is flowing. From the Krivit video, perhaps from others, the elevation of the hose above the floor can be estimated. (For those who haven't looked, the hose is not in a sink, it is in a sink drain, i.e, a hole in the wall where a sink might be installed. You are wrong. If you can point to another source of backpressure, please do so. In one demonstration the hose ran into a sink in another room in my recollection. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. That is, to put it mildly, pucky. The elevation of the hose, to this level, is irrelevant. The weight of the water in the hose will reduce the pressure, were it not for the flow. Steam will *allow* increased flow of the water. The pressure in the chamber will be *reduced* by the water head from the difference in elevation between the chamber and the water level in the bucket. With no boiling, there is a contrary effect, increased pressure caused by the pump with its fixed flow rate. That flow rate through the outlet orifice will increase the pressure in the chamber. Only a little, I think. The elevation is relevant to determining the back pressure. Evolving steam must push down on this head whether the water is flowing or not. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here! There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. Seems confusion can be caused with very little effort, or maybe even no effort at all. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. There isn't any sink. The hose in the Krivit demo goes down to the floor, then rises to a sink drain. That's maybe 35 cm from the floor, a very rough estimate. Since the sink drain is below the table where the E-Cat is sitting, this will reduce the pressure in the E-Cat, not increase it. Yes, in the Krivit video it runs into a sink. In the Levan video a blue bucket. Not all these demos were in the same place that I am aware of. No, what increases the pressure in the E-Cat would be two sources: pump pressure and steam pressure. Yes, steam pressure. This is elementry physics. It can't be all that hard to figure out. Stop the pump, and with no boiling, the pressure in an E-Cat with an outlet hose full of water, leading down to a drain pipe, will be below atmospheric pressure, by the relevant head. If you were to open the steam escape valve at that point, air would flow in, not out. What does leading down to a drain pipe mean? If it leads down, any water drains out of the hose and the pressure in the water jacket will be at ambient pressure.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I would think that anyone seriously investigating should have the reports and video evidence closer at hand. It's embedded in Lewans Ny Teknik article. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 04:49 PM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: I find your statements bewildering. Projection of internal state onto external reality. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's be more careful, everyone! At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. Probably not, but it's significant. First of all, what are the starting conditions? Before the heating is started, the hose is full of water, that water is flowing. From the Krivit video, perhaps from others, the elevation of the hose above the floor can be estimated. (For those who haven't looked, the hose is not in a sink, it is in a sink drain, i.e, a hole in the wall where a sink might be installed. You are wrong. If you can point to another source of backpressure, please do so. In one demonstration the hose ran into a sink in another room in my recollection. If the hose *end* rises above the E-Cat, this will create overpressure. It's not back pressure. Back pressure will result from resistance to flow. In the Krivit video, you can see that the hose is stick into the wall, into a drain fitting for a sink that has not been installed. The initial condition, after the pump is started and water is flowing out the hose: The hose end is inside the drain. The levels involved are this: the level of the E-Cat is highest. Then the hose goes down to the floor and runs into the next room and up to the drain, it's stuck into the drain there. This is below the level of the E-Cat The hose will not, as I stated earlier, fill entirely with water, the flow rate is too low. Rather it will fill to the level of the drain. Above the drain there will be air in the hose. The pump rate is not high enough, I believe, to remove that air. So there is no water head at all, the air pressure will be atmospheric. However, there is some head from the water level at the level of the hose outlet, down to where the thermometer bulb sits. There is no pressure from water standing in the hose, per se. The source of significant pressure in the E-Cat is from the evolution of steam. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. That is, to put it mildly, pucky. The elevation of the hose, to this level, is irrelevant. The weight of the water in the hose will reduce the pressure, were it not for the flow. Steam will *allow* increased flow of the water. The pressure in the chamber will be *reduced* by the water head from the difference in elevation between the chamber and the water level in the bucket. With no boiling, there is a contrary effect, increased pressure caused by the pump with its fixed flow rate. That flow rate through the outlet orifice will increase the pressure in the chamber. Only a little, I think. The elevation is relevant to determining the back pressure. Evolving steam must push down on this head whether the water is flowing or not. The concept of pushing down on this head is where the pucky is. If the head is below the E-Cat, this head will actually be sucking on the interior of the E-Cat. But at equilibrium, if air can flow into the end of the hose, then air will rise and water will flow out the hose beside the rising air, leading to an equalization of levels. The hose will be filled to the level of the drain, in the Krivit case. In that case there is no head. But in the bucket case, it is negative head, if the water level in the hose is higher than the water level in the bucket. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here! There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. Seems confusion can be caused with very little effort, or maybe even no effort at all. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. There isn't any sink. The hose in the Krivit demo goes down to the floor, then rises to a sink drain. That's maybe 35 cm from the floor, a very rough estimate. Since the sink drain is below the table where the E-Cat is sitting, this will reduce the pressure in the E-Cat, not increase it. Yes, in the Krivit
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On 11-07-18 03:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. Meant to be by who? Certainly not Rossi -- his English isn't that bad: Looking at something for 30 minutes isn't a glance ! He said 30 seconds and it's quite clear he meant 30 seconds. This is pretty obviously a plain old lie. Frankly, it's pointless to try to explain away all of Rossi's lies as mistakes and translation errors; there are too many of them.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I agree. I hadn't considered the submersion depth of the probe for additional pressure head. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:20 PM 7/18/2011, P.J van Noorden wrote: To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the backpressure in the Ecat must have been 30mbar (for a boilingpoint of 99.6degC) and 20mbar for a boilingpoint of 99.9degC. This compares to resp 30.6 cm and 20.4cm water and this is about the hight of the chimney. The difference in temperature of the steam can ofcourse only be explained if the chimney of the ecat is almost completely filled with water. This is ofcourse the big question. That's brilliant, actually.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Robert Leguillon wrote: I made the comment about someone flushing the toilet to demonstrate that some of the momentary power spikes could be caused by correlating drops in water pressure. I do not see how this could cause a 20-minute event. There was no continuous monitoring of flow rate, and this was not a fixed-displacement pump. They told me the flow rate was continuously monitored with a video camera. The meter keeps track of total consumption, as I said. There was no pump; just water pressure from the tap. That is very reliable. Water pressure does not change measurably at 1 L/s for 20 minutes when someone flushes a toilet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Jed sez: They told me the flow rate was continuously monitored with a video camera. The meter keeps track of total consumption, as I said. There was no pump; just water pressure from the tap. That is very reliable. Water pressure does not change measurably at 1 L/s for 20 minutes when someone flushes a toilet. Maybe a couple taking a shower. 20 minutes probably isn't enough time. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. Oh, I have constantly talked that the measured boiling point of water is 99.7°C. Apparently my memory did error as I meant that boiling point according thermometer is 99.6°C! Notice that absolute accuracy of thermometer is ±0.4°C. Although it's relative accuracy is ±0.1°C. This alone proofs that there is considerable amount of pressure build up and pressure can only be build up if there is lots of dry steam present. You're just guessing. The pressure at 30 cm of water is enough to raise the bp by about a degree. The chimney height can explain it.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM, P.J van Noorden pjvannoor...@caiway.nlwrote: To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the backpressure in the Ecat must have been 30mbar (for a boilingpoint of 99.6degC) and 20mbar for a boilingpoint of 99.9degC. This compares to resp 30.6 cm and 20.4cm water and this is about the hight of the chimney. The difference in temperature of the steam can ofcourse only be explained if the chimney of the ecat is almost completely filled with water. This is ofcourse the big question. But if it is steam, then it has a much larger volume, and moves much faster and then fittings, expanders, reducers, elbows all produce significant losses, and cause pressure increase. The K-factor for various fittings is tabulated, and the pressure in steam-flow is very sensitive to this factor. There's quite a useful calculator at http://www.pipeflowcalculations.com/pressuredrop/. It takes a little while to get all the data, but for steam flow, pressure is most sensitive to K, and using reasonable estimates based on visible plumbing, it is quite easy to get a pressure increase of 50 or even 100 mbar.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. Only a little steam comes out of the pipe. The flat temperature indicates a mixture of steam and vapor at the bp. The reason for the elevated bp is increased pressure, either because of water depth, or the need to push a high volume of steam through a labyrinth of fillings. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. Check http://www.pipeflowcalculations.com/pressuredrop/ to change your expectations. Be sure to look at the calculator of K-factors and to set the pressure calculator for gas flow at the right conditions.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: P.J van Noorden wrote: the airpressure on April 28th 2011 was 1011 mbar, so the boilingpoint must have been 99.9 degC. The difference in boilingtemperature can be explained by the accuracy of the thermometer (+/- 0.4 degrC). At these temperatures with boiling water I doubt the water temperature was uniform. I have recently been calibrating some thermocouples and thermometers at various temperatures. I have seen considerable non-uniformity. That's a pot, and your thermometer is placed in pure water. In the ecat, the power is high enough to raise all the water to the bp, and convert some to steam before it exits. This mixture of liquid and gas will be at the bp. There is no mixer inside the eCat. It is producing gas at many times the volume of the liquid in a confined volume. That will produce a great deal of mixing.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:55 AM 7/18/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto: a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.com a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time would have rendered pointless most of the discussions and criticisms on steam issues made so far, even Julian Brown's. Now consider this possibility: Rossi wanted this exact situation, that he'd look like a complete scammer. He need to make the demo for some reason, whether it was personal for Focardi, or whatever, it doesn't matter, but he had a contrary need, to throw others off track, to inhibit attempts to replicate what he's doing. If he looks like a fraud and a scammer, that will seriously impact the ability of others to get funding to try to figure out what he's doing. The only problem with this theory is that it doesn't explain his boast about running the ecat without input, or for that matter, getting 120 kW in the 18-hour test. No theory explains everything, it is an intrinsic limitation of all theories. However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might be explained, for example, by some scale whacking the flow drastically for a short time. Or it might be that the thing actually produced 120 kW for a short time, which would make me really worried about putting one of these in my basement! It is possible to have too much of a good thing! The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It means that during that excursion the delta T between the ecat walls and the water would have to increase by an order of magnitude. If ordinary operation is at 300C or 400C, this would cause the metal to melt.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: How do you take a 30 minute glance? Well, Brown said in his report that Rossi showed him heat after death for about 2 minutes. (He also told me this.) That's more than 30 seconds. Perhaps Rossi just means for a short while. I do not think he means 30 seconds in the literal sense. It is a shame Rossi gets bent out of shape so easily. - Jed It's a shame that every time Rossi says something, no one knows what he said.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Abd wrote: Whatever is the cause, that the temperature is nailed shows that there is steam and water in equilibrium. It's only been recently that Rossi admits to achieving completely dry steam, The claim is implicit in the power calculation from the very first demo. and from Kullander's report we can estimate that the steam has less than 2% liquid content (1.4% from his report). How you ask??? If the Relative Humidity is below saturation, the one can use that and the temperature and pressure to give you the mass of water vapor per volume of steam. But Rossi doesn't measure the volume of the steam, so you still don't know the mass of the steam. And if you assume that all the water is converted to steam to get the steam volume, then you're arguing in a circle. Again. I know this is beating that dead horse again, but the absolute certainty with which some argue the opposite point is, in my opinion, not justified. If the steam is nearing saturation (95% RH) then I might agree that its use is seriously questionable. I don't remember seeing any figures for the RH when the Testo probe was used inside the chimney... If it was over 95% then I would concede the skeptic's point. Steam at the boiling point is 100% saturated by definition. What else could you have other than water vapor? So you should concede. I found a paper on measuring steam quality. It's a tricky (and important) business, but the classical method is to use calorimetry. That is, determine the heat content and deduce the liquid content. Rossi is using the liquid content to get the heat content. But how does he get it. If a testo probe was effective, why would others bother with calorimetry. Newer methods use optical and microwave techniques. There is no mention of capacitive methods. Nor does the literature on the probe itself claim to be able to determine steam quality. The paper is Mitra et al. ...Steam Quality Measurement ..., IEEE Sensors Journal 11 (2011) 1214. Here's a snippet from the intro: Various methods for determining the steam quality (wetness fraction) and the enthalpy of the partially condensed steam at the last stages of a turbine have been under development for over many years. Several types of calorimetry probes based on extraction and analysis of wet steam from the main flow exist [6]. In order to carry out an accurate measurement process and analysis, the sampling procedure should be iso-kinematical. Iso-kinematical sampling in the running turbines is extremely difficult due to unsteady flow in the last stages, and the local thermodynamic and aerodynamic parameters are also disturbed. Also, the probe must be well heat insulated to achieve accurate results. Every measurement takes several hours as full thermal equilibrium of the whole probe body should be established from one operating condition to another. This results in the probe missing the transient data of the turbine during a startup and shutdown condition. Thus, a calorimetry probe is mostly used to make measurements well beyond the last stage of a turbine. [...] Recently, some work has been done on the development of optical methods, primarily based on light scattering techniques and microwave resonant cavities [7]–[9]. The optical techniques mentioned in the above-mentioned references provide informa- tion of the size of the water droplets, render fast measurements, and enable measurement between the different stages in a tur- bine. They also do not disturb the local thermodynamic pa- rameters. However, the estimation of steam quality with these technique depends on the droplet size classification. Individual monochromatic light sources of different wavelengths are used in the measurement. Hence, the measurement accuracy for the steam quality is highly dependent on the water droplet size dis- tribution which can be reliably measured only with appropriate wavelengths being used to probe the steam. One wonders why they would go to all that trouble if a testo probe could be used. In the paper they show how their technique can measure steam quality to within a few per cent between 5% and 80%. 5% corresponds to 5 % steam by mass, and yes, that means 95% liquid by mass. So not only is very wet steam with 95% liquid by mass possible, but there are ways to measure it accurately. Not with an RH probe, though.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: In all the talk about the start up slope and thermal mass, one can almost forget the metals. Here are the specific heats for most of the materials that make up the majority of the e-Cat: - Hydrogen (gas) 14.30 J/g*K - Water (liquid) 4.18 J/g*K - Stainless0.5 J/g*K - Nickel 0.46 J/g*K - Copper 0.39 J/g*K - Lead 0.13 J/g*K The only thing that has any real heat capacity is the water and hydrogen... But the water is flowing. It is always replaced at the same temperature, so it is not involved in the warm up. It's the thermal mass of the ecat that causes it to take time to warm up at the beginning, and to cool off at the end. The hydrogen may have a high heat capacity, but it makes little contribution because its mass is so small. In addition, the rubber hose has about HALF the heat capacity of water, so it can absorb a considerable amount of heat before it changes temperature... That's not how heat capacity works. Any change in heat causes a change in temperature; it's only a matter of how much. But there is a way to absorb heat without changing temperature: when the phase changes. That's why the temperature is not varying by even a small amount. Any fluctuation in the power is absorbed by variation in the steam wetness without any change in the temperature. That's why the flat temperature is such good evidence that the steam is wet.
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
So not only is very wet steam with 95% liquid by mass possible, but there are ways to measure it accurately. Not with an RH probe, though.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: So not only is very wet steam with 95% liquid by mass possible, but there are ways to measure it accurately. Not with an RH probe, though. Sorry, but some people seem to think that horse is still winning the Preakness. I will not rest until it is buried.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It means that during that excursion the delta T between the ecat walls and the water would have to increase by an order of magnitude. If ordinary operation is at 300C or 400C, this would cause the metal to melt. Yeah, my thinking is along these lines also. This tends to indicate that there is some unidentified artifact operating. It does call into question the more moderate results. For example, suppose there was some problem with the temperature sensor placement, suppose it is somehow picking up increased heat It could be any of millions of things. Those of us working with cold fusion really have to be aware, there are millions of ways to get it wrong. That works in the other direction, by the way. That we can show reasons to be skeptical doesn't prove that there wasn't any excess heat. To do that would require work that hasn't taken place, that Rossi has not allowed. Jed Rothwell has pointed this out, and so have many others. Joshua, you are quite right to remain skeptical on Rossi's demonstrations. I think you've erred with respect to other things in this field, but we can look at that later. I am not the authority on Truth, and anyone who thinks they are is probably in deep doo-doo, intellectually. Looking at the Rossi demonstrations, I'm inclined to think that there is *some level* of excess heat here. But, then again, I do accept other LENR excess heat findings, lots of them. I can easily understand why someone who thinks those other findings as not conclusive would find Rossi even less conclusive. For starters, no independent verification, basic criterion. And we'll just have to wait for that, unless, say, Brian Ahern hits gold. There are people digging, one of them may strike the mother lode. I love the people who look, instead of just sitting and pontificating. If nothing else, they give us far more interesting stuff to pontificate about! In fact, though, these people are responsible for most breakthroughs in science. Behind them are phalanxes of people who do more boring work, replicating and measuring and nailing things down
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
2011/7/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It means that during that excursion the delta T between the ecat walls and the water would have to increase by an order of magnitude. If ordinary operation is at 300C or 400C, this would cause the metal to melt. Yeah, my thinking is along these lines also. I am stunned. I thought that you, Abd ul-Rahman had somewhat sense along with your reasoning ability, but instead you fell such a simple false argument! Sorry, but I just fail with words to describe how utterly your credibility went down the sink here. –Jouni Ps. you still have however a chance to apologize your error that you concurred Joshua! Perhaps you just misread something. . .
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 03:58 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: In the paper they show how their technique can measure steam quality to within a few per cent between 5% and 80%. 5% corresponds to 5 % steam by mass, and yes, that means 95% liquid by mass. That seems to be the official definition of steam quality: mass of vapor divided by total mass. So 0% quality means pure liquid, 100% would be pure vapor, high-quality steam. However, people have been referring to the inverse, the percentage of steam that is liquid, creating, possibly, come confusion. Dry steam is 0% liquid by mass.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:58 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: In the paper they show how their technique can measure steam quality to within a few per cent between 5% and 80%. 5% corresponds to 5 % steam by mass, and yes, that means 95% liquid by mass. That seems to be the official definition of steam quality: mass of vapor divided by total mass. So 0% quality means pure liquid, 100% would be pure vapor, high-quality steam. However, people have been referring to the inverse, the percentage of steam that is liquid, creating, possibly, come confusion. Dry steam is 0% liquid by mass. Right. Wetness and dryness are different. The point is that wet steam can most definitely be 95% or more liquid by mass. It's produced and measured experimentally. It is completely plausible that such wet steam is produced in the ecat. It makes much more sense than liquid water filling the chimney, and steam at 10 or more times the volume somehow passing through it. Wet steam is not a red herring.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 05:06 PM 7/19/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/7/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It means that during that excursion the delta T between the ecat walls and the water would have to increase by an order of magnitude. If ordinary operation is at 300C or 400C, this would cause the metal to melt. Yeah, my thinking is along these lines also. I am stunned. I thought that you, Abd ul-Rahman had somewhat sense along with your reasoning ability, but instead you fell such a simple false argument! Sorry, but I just fail with words to describe how utterly your credibility went down the sink here. Along with a lot of cooling water, eh? Look, there is a simple technique which would have addressed so many of these problems: gravity feed of water, with the source at a level where water would not flow through, but only in, to the E-Cat. Combine this with continuous examination of steam quality, with no liquid flow possible, it would be iced. Not done. As to Cude's suggestion, Jouni, I don't think you've understood what Cude was pointing out. It's not a proof, it's an inference. Can you understand the basis for that inference. Give it a try. Hint: it has to do with what is likely thermal resistance between the reaction chamber and the cooling water. Give it a try! Jouni Ps. you still have however a chance to apologize your error that you concurred Joshua! Perhaps you just misread something. . . I'm not seeing any error being pointed out. What error? By the way, my comment wasn't validating specifics of Cude's statement, just the line of approach. Think about it! Indications have been that the reactor temperature is quite a bit higher than the coolant water would allow if they were in intimate contact. From what I've read about this, it takes something over 400 degrees C for the reaction to start up. If the reaction can start at 60 degrees, all bets are off! The thinking would be incorrect. What do you think?
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
JC wrote: Have I got it straight? Because if so, then I think the idea is whacked. If not -- if you think the ecat *can* produce intermediate powers -- please try to explain what would come out of the ecat if it were producing 2 kW power (in the Krivit demo). Presumably, if there is no forbidden region, it must pass that power level. I would bet that at this time, and from comments made about 'calibrating' the production units, the input water flow rate is determined by each eCat's reactor characteristics... you can't just use any flow rate with a specific reactor and have it perform as claimed. I.e., they can more or less deposit the Ni powder in a way that scales the reaction rate up or down to some degree, but the flow rate that allows it to run at the cusp of the phase diagram (Point-C on the diagram I posted in the last few weeks) varies with each reactor and thus they have to do some testing to determine exactly what input water flow rate matches the reactors heat production rate and will maintain a fairly constant water level in the lower section of the chimney. If the flow rate it too high then water will build up in the chimney and overflow, if the rate is too low then the water level will decrease and eventually fall below the top of the reactor. The resistance heaters then give them the fine-tuning needed to maintain a constant water level. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Hello Jouni It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy ( a normal situation during spring and summer). Look at to calculate the pressure corrected boilingpoint : http://www.csgnetwork.com/prescorh2oboilcalc.html Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat 2011/7/18 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: teapots don't have a fixed water flow input. Rather, water is added when the level declines. This is irrelevant difference. Water flow is there only to ensure that water level does not drop below reactor core, so that core does not expose to air. Water is not there to demonstrate how much E-Cat produces energy, but it's main function is to control reactor temperature and prevent reactor meltdown. This is the very essence of boiling water reactors. See, the purpose water for measurements is irrelevant component, but it is used, because water is very convenient substance as boiling water reactor coolant. That is because the enthalpy of water phase change is so high. This enables to divert much of the heat energy away from reactor core while the temperature of coolant remains constant. This is very crusial, because according to sig. Rossi, his E-Cat is very sensitive for internal temperature of reactor. The problem with this is that dry steam above boiling would require a chamber hotter than boiling, this can't happen unless the chamber substantially empties. It is perfectly possible that pressure rises inside E-Cat so that boiling point is at 100.5°C or 0.8°C higher. But what is impossible without very special setup, is that reactor produces wet steam and such a high pressure simultaneously, that it could cause boiling point to rise. If steam is very wet, then the energy output of the reactor is very low. And it cannot heat up reactor that much that it will cause significant pressure build up. Pressure build up depends on that there is significant amount of dry steam present! But, it is possible that if heating element is very hot, steam temperature can rise somewhat over boiling, because surface tension of water enable the bubble formation. And this gives some time for heating element to heat steam directly in gaseous phase although heating element is under water. Therefore it should not be impossible, that steam temperature finds its equilibrium that is 0.1-2.0 °C higher than actual boiling point. This depends on what is the temperature difference between heating element and boiling water. A teapot with a fixed flow input could overflow, indeed, if that's the only way that water is added, we can predict that, unless there is some complex feedback mechanism either on flow or on heat vs water level, the water will either boil away and the chimney temperature will increase, or water will start to overflow, some portion of the water will flow out. You do not have any evidence for that E-Cat can overflow, therefore this is just empty speculation. If you could even speculate with this possibility seriously, you should know what is the inner volume of the E-Cat. But you do not know even such a rudimentary detail about the E-Cat. This kind of speculation is useless and nonproductive, because first of all, temperature reading would be below 99.7°C, because there cannot be pressure build up without intensive production of dry steam. But as I stated this problem is easy to fix, that you just introduce a secret heating element near thermometer that feeds false temperature readings. On the other hand, if E-Cat is a hoax, it far more easy to construct such a way that Rossi just hides a internal hydrogen tank. E.g. I have suggested that the stand where E-Cats are mounted could be hollow hand that would be easy way to hide a hydrogen bottle. Therefore Kullander's and Essén's observations about the E-Cat has exactly zero scientific value, because they cannot tell a part, whether they witnessed a catalyzed hydrogen burning or catalyzed cold fusion. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
2011/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. Oh, I have constantly talked that the measured boiling point of water is 99.7°C. Apparently my memory did error as I meant that boiling point according thermometer is 99.6°C! Notice that absolute accuracy of thermometer is ±0.4°C. Although it's relative accuracy is ±0.1°C. This alone proofs that there is considerable amount of pressure build up and pressure can only be build up if there is lots of dry steam present. Therefore only explanation for heat anomaly is that there is internal power source within the E-Cat structure. Electricity just cannot explain the temperature of 100.5±0.1°C if we assume that thermometer readings are not falsified, e.g. with secret heating element near thermometer sensor. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Rossi could serve many negative examples for a course of Prestige Management He reminds me one of the 'casts' of this fable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog It seems he does not care, because if the E-cat woirks well at the industrial level, these gaffes will be forgotten. Let's wait and see! Peter. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-07-17 21:16, Akira Shirakawa wrote: And this was Rossi's answer: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#** comment-53792http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-53792 It looks like Rossi has updated his answer on JONP, without adding a note about that. I personally find this phantom editing behavior despicable, but that's the way he communicates to the public after all. This is what the comment looks like now: Andrea Rossi July 17th, 2011 at 1:54 PM Dear Paul Story: Very funny: this clown, named Julian Brown, wrote me saying he was an officer of the Patent Office and that he wanted give me suggestions. I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. He saw nothing, I said nothing, also because he inspired me no trust, because said he is a Quantum Physicist, but said so much stupidities that not even a 13 years old student of middle school could say, so I understood he was an impostor. We agreed, after a short meeting, that he would have mailed to me a text of a patent that he thought would have had many probabilities to be accepted: I was very baffled, because I could not understand how an officer of the European Patent Office could behave like that: he asked me to be paid by my company’s shares in change of his help! After some day I received from this clown ( who until that moment spoke only positively of all what he saw) some text, simply ridiculous, for a new patent (I conserve the copies, of course) and in these texts there was written that my patent was to be based on an already granted patent made from one competitor of mine, obviously a “friend” of his. I made a research and discovered that the patent of my competitor he referred to had not been granted, but had been refused. Of course he has been sent from such competitor to spy and to try to mess up with patents. I wrote him a mail inviting him not to contact me again: he was clearly an impostor. At this point he made the comment on Ecatnews… Conclusion: he lies when he says he made a test, he lies when he says he has seen an E-Cat enough to say anything about it (just has taken a 30 seconds look), he lies if he says he has seen the steam, he saw nothing because the circuit was ermetically closed, he lies when he says that he is an officer of the Patent Office (if he is, he made a crime, because he asked me, in change of his help, shares of Leonardo Corporation), he lies when he says he is an expert of patents, he lies when he says that my competitor he works with has a patent on this matter granted in 1995. It is clear that somebody, desperate of the fact that a 1 MW plant is close to be started up from us, is trying to use all the methods of a snake to try to put clubs in the wheels. But all this is just clownery: my plants will give evidence in the real market of the validity of my effect. It is also clear that at this point I cannot allow any more info or courtesy visit before the start up of my 1 MW plant. I have evidence, registrations and witnesses of all what I wrote here: BY THE WAY, ALL MY LABS AND FACTORIES, FOR SECURITY ISSUES, ARE SUPPLIED BY HIDDEN CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES TO REGISTER EVERYTHING WHICH HAPPENS AND IS SAID INSIDE. Warm Regards, A.R. So he now says he's got evidence backing up his statements about JB. I wonder if he will actually use that. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
If Rossi was a scammer, he'd never accept this kind of visit or would make a more decent presentation like he did with Lewan or would just remain silent. This explosive behavior makes me think that e-cat is true... Unless he is simulating a true behavior to hide a scam. This is a kind of recursive thing. BTW, one thing that always bothered me about Krivit's video it is that there is a long time cut from the time between Rossi pulls out the hose from the wall and when he shows the steam against the black t-shirt. Maybe Rossi decreased the steam rate to avoid harming people there?
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
P.J van Noorden wrote: the airpressure on April 28th 2011 was 1011 mbar, so the boilingpoint must have been 99.9 degC. The difference in boilingtemperature can be explained by the accuracy of the thermometer (+/- 0.4 degrC). At these temperatures with boiling water I doubt the water temperature was uniform. I have recently been calibrating some thermocouples and thermometers at various temperatures. I have seen considerable non-uniformity. There is no mixer inside the eCat. Barometric pressure also varies during the day and from place to place. A 0.4°C difference from the boiling point based on weather reports is not surprising. I will upload some notes about my calibration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 12:55 AM 7/18/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time would have rendered pointless most of the discussions and criticisms on steam issues made so far, even Julian Brown's. Now consider this possibility: Rossi wanted this exact situation, that he'd look like a complete scammer. He need to make the demo for some reason, whether it was personal for Focardi, or whatever, it doesn't matter, but he had a contrary need, to throw others off track, to inhibit attempts to replicate what he's doing. If he looks like a fraud and a scammer, that will seriously impact the ability of others to get funding to try to figure out what he's doing. The only problem with this theory is that it doesn't explain his boast about running the ecat without input, or for that matter, getting 120 kW in the 18-hour test. No theory explains everything, it is an intrinsic limitation of all theories. However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might be explained, for example, by some scale whacking the flow drastically for a short time. Or it might be that the thing actually produced 120 kW for a short time, which would make me really worried about putting one of these in my basement! It is possible to have too much of a good thing!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
[snip] However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might be explained, for example, by some scale whacking the flow drastically for a short time. Or it might be that the thing actually produced 120 kW for a short time, which would make me really worried about putting one of these in my basement! It is possible to have too much of a good thing! _ Abd, They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. This may have all been covered before, but: Provided this is not a scam (important caveat), it is best explained that an operating E-Cat is difficult to keep stable. With the large water flow, Rossi was running the E-Cat closer to its self-sustaining temperatures. It would run away at times, and it was merely luck that the nano nickel did not melt and bring the experiment to an abrupt halt. In Rossi's effort to keep the E-Cat stable, he runs WELL below the self-sustaining temperatures and pressures. As J.C. has gone to great pains to illustrate, water at the boiling point is an excellent medium to absorb energy fluctutations. It's always possible that A.R.'s too stubborn to listen to criticism and, in an effort to turn the E-Cat down, - ended up turning it off. In Krivit's demo (and others) it may have not been working. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means that it may not have in those demos. All demos should've shown a kink in the heating curve, when the E-Cat turned on. Rossi may be ignoring valid criticisms, because knowing that the E-Cat works, he can't accept that it might not be working just then.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
How do you take a 30 minute glance? On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: How do you take a 30 minute glance? Well, Brown said in his report that Rossi showed him heat after death for about 2 minutes. (He also told me this.) That's more than 30 seconds. Perhaps Rossi just means for a short while. I do not think he means 30 seconds in the literal sense. It is a shame Rossi gets bent out of shape so easily. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office is the same as the one of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ? -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/7/18 Subject: Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (He also told me this.)
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office is the same as the one of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ? Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. This reminds me of the joke about a person who says Shakespeare did not write his plays, it was another man of the same name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 10:08 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. Jed is correct here in one way. The boiling test rules out atmospheric pressure as a cause of an increase boiling point. However, Jed is not correct that backpressure is minimal. Even a little back pressure, from the steam, could cause the elevated temperature. Whatever is the cause, that the temperature is nailed shows that there is steam and water in equilibrium. This is not a characteristic of dry steam. Now, if the temperature record for the higher temperature shows substantial variation, this would be different. It's not seen in, say, the Kullander and Essen data. What is seen in the Lewan data is, shall we say, puzzing, but there was some variation above boiling. Problem is, they were sparging steam and they, themselves, said that this explains the elevated temperature. I.e., back pressure.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 12:07 PM 7/18/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-07-17 21:16, Akira Shirakawa wrote: And this was Rossi's answer: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-53792 It looks like Rossi has updated his answer on JONP, without adding a note about that. I personally find this phantom editing behavior despicable, but that's the way he communicates to the public after all. This is what the comment looks like now: Let's see what he changed. Here was the original, at least what was quoted here: Dear Paul Story: Very funny: this clown, named Julian Brown, wrote me saying he was an officer of the Patent Office and that he wanted give me suggestions. I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him ahd he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invired hin to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. He saw nothing, I said nothing. We agreed, after a short meeting, that he would have mailed to me a text of a patent that he thought would have many probabilities to be accepted. After some day I received from this clown some text simply ridiculous, and in these text there was written that my patent text removed (altered) was based on patents made from my competitors. I made a research and discovered that the patents of my competitors he referred to had not been granted, but had been refused. Of course he has been sent from such competitors to spy and to try to mess up with patents. Conclusion: he lies when he says he made a test, he lies when he says he has seen an E-Cat enough to say anything about it (just has taken a 30 seconds look), he lies if he says he has seen the steam, he saw nothing because the circuit was ermetically closed, he lies when he says that [text altered:] he is or has been an officer of the Patent Office, he lies when he says he is an expert of patents, he lies when he says that my Competitor he works with has a patent on this matter granted in 1995. It is clear that somebody, desperate of the fact that a 1 MW plant is close to be started up, is trying to use all the method of a snake to try to put clubs in the wheels. But all this is just clownery: my plants will give evidence in the real marlet of the validity of my effect. It is also clear that at this point I cannot give any more info or courtesy visit before the start up of my 1 MW plant. This is the new text (as quoted by Akira, I haven't verified it). Andrea Rossi July 17th, 2011 at 1:54 PM Dear Paul Story: Very funny: this clown, named Julian Brown, wrote me saying he was an officer of the Patent Office and that he wanted give me suggestions. I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. He saw nothing, I said nothing, [text added:] also because he inspired me no trust, because said he is a Quantum Physicist, but said so much stupidities that not even a 13 years old student of middle school could say, so I understood he was an impostor. We agreed, after a short meeting, that he would have mailed to me a text of a patent that he thought would have had many probabilities to be accepted: [text added:] I was very baffled, because I could not understand how an officer of the European Patent Office could behave like that: he asked me to be paid by my companyâs shares in change of his help! After some day I received from this clown [text added:] ( who until that moment spoke only positively of all what he saw) some text, simply ridiculous, for a new patent [text added:] (I conserve the copies, of course) and in these texts there was written that my patent was [text altered/added] to be based on an already granted patent made from one competitor of mine, obviously a âfriendâ of his. I made a research and discovered that the patent of my competitor he referred to had not been granted, but had been refused. Of course he has been sent from such competitor to spy and to try to mess up with patents. [text added:] I wrote him a mail inviting him not to contact me again: he was clearly an impostor. At this point he made the comment on Ecatnews Conclusion: he lies when he says he made a test, he lies when he says he has seen an E-Cat enough to say anything about it (just has taken a 30 seconds look), he lies if he says he has seen the steam, he saw nothing because the circuit was ermetically closed, he lies when he says that [text added/altered] he is an officer of the Patent Office (if he is, he made a crime, because he asked me, in change of his
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 12:20 PM 7/18/2011, P.J van Noorden wrote: To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the backpressure in the Ecat must have been 30mbar (for a boilingpoint of 99.6degC) and 20mbar for a boilingpoint of 99.9degC. This compares to resp 30.6 cm and 20.4cm water and this is about the hight of the chimney. The difference in temperature of the steam can ofcourse only be explained if the chimney of the ecat is almost completely filled with water. This is ofcourse the big question. That's brilliant, actually. Add to this head of water, a little bit of steam back-pressure, it's quite easy. In other words, if the E-cat is filling with water, to overflowing, we would expect the temperature, when the thing starts to boil, to exceed 100 degrees, even if there is flowing water, and, in fact, *especially* if there is overflowing water, the chimney is full to the level of the hose. Exact placment of the thermometer may be important.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I am not sure if you could do this procedure in any place. In not all places the accused is allowed to produce evidences against his/herself. If Brown didn't say what Rossi claims, I'd suggest Brown may want those recordings *immediately* subpoenaed. If he did say that, and if what he said was, in fact, illegal, slinking quietly away may be in order. What I do *not* recommend is slinking away if he didn't say those things, because he could easily suffer the damages anyway. Brown already requested that his blog comment be removed, because of the hassle, or something, already appearing.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 03:15 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. While thirty minutes certainly would make more sense, in context, Rossi emphasizes 30 seconds, repeating it three times and not correcting it when he edits the comment later. He's making the point that this was extremely brief. Since we must assume that Rossi is quite aware of the difference between a minute and a second, and if you are right, Jed, it shows again how careless Rossi is about what he says. He might be sloppy rich soon. Or just sloppy. Depends, eh?
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd wrote: Whatever is the cause, that the temperature is nailed shows that there is steam and water in equilibrium. It's only been recently that Rossi admits to achieving completely dry steam, and from Kullander's report we can estimate that the steam has less than 2% liquid content (1.4% from his report). How you ask??? If the Relative Humidity is below saturation, the one can use that and the temperature and pressure to give you the mass of water vapor per volume of steam. I know this is beating that dead horse again, but the absolute certainty with which some argue the opposite point is, in my opinion, not justified. If the steam is nearing saturation (95% RH) then I might agree that its use is seriously questionable. I don't remember seeing any figures for the RH when the Testo probe was used inside the chimney... If it was over 95% then I would concede the skeptic's point. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd wrote: ... that the temperature is nailed shows that there is steam and water in equilibrium. This is not a characteristic of dry steam. It all depends on the consistency of the inlet flow rate and water temperature, and the reactor's heat production. With most of the tests the pump used can be considered to provide a consistent flow-rate, and the fact that they were taking water from a large container would provide a pretty consistent temperature, so the only real significant variable would be the reactor heat production rate... And with highly controlled particle size and what is most likely a very specific process of applying the Ni-catalyst powder to the inside of the reactor, very consistent heat production is certainly reasonable. The semiconductor industry can deposit layers of atoms only a few atoms thick, and do it quite precisely and repeatably. The circuits that come out of those processes are extremely consistent. It really isn't a stretch at all to think that some careful deposition processes could be used to obtain a consistent layering of the 'fuel' in the e-Cat's reactor to provide very consistent performance. And when you have a working fluid with the large heat capacity that water has, then you've got a system that can stand considerable fluctuations of heat which are smoothed out by the water's specific heat. In all the talk about the start up slope and thermal mass, one can almost forget the metals. Here are the specific heats for most of the materials that make up the majority of the e-Cat: - Hydrogen (gas) 14.30 J/g*K - Water (liquid) 4.18 J/g*K - Stainless0.5 J/g*K - Nickel 0.46 J/g*K - Copper 0.39 J/g*K - Lead 0.13 J/g*K The only thing that has any real heat capacity is the water and hydrogen... The material that is probably the most by mass, the lead, is also the lowest specific heat of all the materials. In addition, the rubber hose has about HALF the heat capacity of water, so it can absorb a considerable amount of heat before it changes temperature... -Mark
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 03:42 PM 7/18/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: [snip] However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might be explained, for example, by some scale whacking the flow drastically for a short time. Or it might be that the thing actually produced 120 kW for a short time, which would make me really worried about putting one of these in my basement! It is possible to have too much of a good thing! _ Abd, They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. It's not a joke, that's a real possibility. I was living for a time in an industrial building near here. They had a fire suppression system, built many years before, with sprinklers all over the inside of the building, and a huge water tank underneath the parking lot, and a pump to maintain water pressure that would come on automatically if there was any drop in pressure. As it happened, there was some kind of backflow leakage, and this system would turn on at about 5 AM when the local water supply suffered a common drop in pressure, there would be backflow and loss of pressure, so the automated system would turn on. The fire alarms would turn on and everyone would have to leave the building, the fire department would show up and we wouldn't be let back in until the fire department verified it was all clear. It got very old after a while. Water systems can suffer substantial changes in pressure from changes in flow. If the water flow was full-on, as apparently it was, basically the maximum they could get to come out of a tap, this would be particularly sensitive. The possible effect of this? Unclear. This may have all been covered before, but: Provided this is not a scam (important caveat), it is best explained that an operating E-Cat is difficult to keep stable. With the large water flow, Rossi was running the E-Cat closer to its self-sustaining temperatures. It would run away at times, and it was merely luck that the nano nickel did not melt and bring the experiment to an abrupt halt. In Rossi's effort to keep the E-Cat stable, he runs WELL below the self-sustaining temperatures and pressures. I think the analysis is correct. As J.C. has gone to great pains to illustrate, water at the boiling point is an excellent medium to absorb energy fluctutations. It's always possible that A.R.'s too stubborn to listen to criticism and, in an effort to turn the E-Cat down, - ended up turning it off. In Krivit's demo (and others) it may have not been working. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means that it may not have in those demos. All demos should've shown a kink in the heating curve, when the E-Cat turned on. That's what I'd think, but we don't know what temperature that would be. We are only seeing the cooling chamber pressure. Of greater interest would be the reactor temperature, which I'm practically certain Rossi is monitoring. Controlling this thing by only looking at coolant temperature would be asking for major oscillation, too much thermal inertia. Rossi may be ignoring valid criticisms, because knowing that the E-Cat works, he can't accept that it might not be working just then. We can speculate until the cows come home. What's become clear to me is that excess heat has not been *clearly demonstrated.* It looks like, sometimes, there may be some. Excluding fraud, of course. It is how much that is quite unclear.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 05:25 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comdanieldi...@gmail.com wrote: So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office is the same as the one of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ? Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is an imposter. Of course, Rossi claims all kinds of things, eh? This reminds me of the joke about a person who says Shakespeare did not write his plays, it was another man of the same name. That's an obvious preposterousness, because Shakespeare did not write his plays specifies the name no more than Shakespeare. But could there be two people named Shakespeare? Perhaps. There certainly could be two people named Julian Brown, I think I found more than two in a search. I'd think you might have prior contact with Julian Brown, physicist, associated with or previously associated with Oxford, right? You should be able to tell, or at least you'd have a good idea. He might be a little skittish, now, if that request to take down the blog note actually came from him!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
In one of my comments, I put a website that lists people with given names up to 200. There are over 200 Julian Browns in the UK, that is, they exceed the maximum amount allowed to be displayed in the website. So, that is a common name.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. I don't think it was impromptu. It was installed in the line to the machine, as far as I know. A sub-meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. It's not a joke, that's a real possibility. No, it isn't. The water meter shows total consumption, not just instantaneous demand. If the flow rate had changed for a long time the total consumption would have fallen and this would have shown up in the final numbers. That would be true even if they used the building meter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is an imposter. I missed that. As far as I know he is the fellow who has been involved in cold fusion for a long time. I have no idea where he works. I am sure he attended Oxford. I have no reason to doubt he is who he says he is. I suggest people should ignore Rossi's outbursts and insults. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 08:49 PM 7/18/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: I am not sure if you could do this procedure in any place. In not all places the accused is allowed to produce evidences against his/herself. If Brown didn't say what Rossi claims, I'd suggest Brown may want those recordings *immediately* subpoenaed. If he did say that, and if what he said was, in fact, illegal, slinking quietly away may be in order. What I do *not* recommend is slinking away if he didn't say those things, because he could easily suffer the damages anyway. Brown already requested that his blog comment be removed, because of the hassle, or something, already appearing. First of all, I don't know where the meeting took place, actually. Probably Italy, though. In the U.S., generally, given the circumstances, discovery could start immediately, with Rossi presented with interrogatories legally requiring him to provide those documents. (I.e., the recordings.) Whether Brown would want to do this, of course, depends on the situation. Who is the accused? Rossi is accusing Brown of malfeasance or worse, it looks like. If that's not true, then Rossi may have libelled Brown, and Brown could have a cause of action. If it's true, that's another story. Brown could still require disclosure, even if it's true, but it might be a Bad Idea! If prosecutors see this, and think that a crime was committed, they may themselves go to Rossi and demand the recordings.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Any data or estimates as to the volume inside the Rossi device, available to be filled with water up to the exit hole, and the additional space above the maximum water level, available to be filled up with mist, foam, froth, bubbles, and steam? If the available water volume is, say, 180 cc, then a flow of 2 cc/sec would take 90 seconds to fill it and then start filling the 9 m black output hose. I wonder if some of the kinks in the water temperature measured by the thermister (which is only one data location in a complex witch's cauldron) might turn out to reflect a possibly intricate water flow. Could steam vapor blocks form to block and switch some of the flows? Data! More data! Give me data, I say!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
The meeting took place in Bologna. The thing that could happen is Brown accusing Rossi of defamation and show a picture of the website as a proof. If Rossi didn't present defense, the purported recordings, he would get a sentence. No need for a subpoena.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 09:20 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. I don't think it was impromptu. It was installed in the line to the machine, as far as I know. A sub-meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. It's not a joke, that's a real possibility. No, it isn't. The water meter shows total consumption, not just instantaneous demand. If the flow rate had changed for a long time the total consumption would have fallen and this would have shown up in the final numbers. Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short time. Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and that would be for a long time, relatively. That would be true even if they used the building meter. However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short time. Gremlins? What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 09:22 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is an imposter. I missed that. As far as I know he is the fellow who has been involved in cold fusion for a long time. I have no idea where he works. I am sure he attended Oxford. I have no reason to doubt he is who he says he is. I suggest people should ignore Rossi's outbursts and insults. Thanks. If you think people will ignore the outbursts and insults, you have almost as low a set of people skills as Rossi. These things affect credibility, and a great deal rests on Rossi's credibility, which is, because of an accumulation of outbursts and insults -- and various facts and personal history, very low. That doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means that people will want to see clearly independent evidence. Rossi has no obligation to provide it. In fact, one of the mysteries is that he's put so much time into answering comments on his blog. Given the business he's up to, couldn't he delegate that to someone? One would think!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
According to Rossi, high output of heats does yield a lot of radiation, I think gamma radiation. I think he said somewhere that he had to stay 30m away from the e-cat so that radiation were not harmful. I am not sure of this.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 10:22 PM 7/18/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: The meeting took place in Bologna. The thing that could happen is Brown accusing Rossi of defamation and show a picture of the website as a proof. If Rossi didn't present defense, the purported recordings, he would get a sentence. No need for a subpoena. Sentence? No, defamation, at least in the U.S., is not ordinarily criminal. The plaintiff would be seeking damages. Money. Perhaps an apology or correction. But we don't know exactly what happened, and a great deal could depend on exactly what was said. Was Brown just trying to help Rossi with some advice about patents, or was he offering undue influence (which would probably be illegal)? Did Brown misrepresent his position, in an effort to gain compensation. That would be strange, to be sure, being compensated by stock would be a big red flag, singularly stupid. People selling influence illegally don't ask to be paid with checks, not to mention stock certificates or promise to provide stock! They want cash! Small bills, please! Rossi's story simply doesn't make sense. But lots of things don't make sense
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I am not referring to US, but to Italy, since I suppose they have a criminal Law similar to my country, Brazil.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short time. About 20 minutes, I think. Long enough to be certain it is real, with this equipment, at this flow rate. Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and that would be for a long time, relatively. They show both the instantaneous rate and total water consumption. The ones I have seen do. These are the cheapest sub-meters on the market, for $50. (Sub-meters are used, for example, in individual apartments or in a boiler room for one boiler.) However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short time. Gremlins? Cold fusion, obviously. Do you think one thing caused the 17 kW and something else caused the bigger heat burst? Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables. There are not too many variables. The same 4 as ever: inlet temp, outlet temp, flow and input power. 20 minutes at this flow rate is plenty of time to be sure. However, there may be some heat going from the cell directly to the outlet thermocouple in this case, which would exaggerate the heat. That cannot be a problem for the 17 kW observed for of the test, before and after the transient. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Jed, Agreed. The 18 hour test, assuming the observations we are given are fact, would be conclusive. I made the comment about someone flushing the toilet to demonstrate that some of the momentary power spikes could be caused by correlating drops in water pressure. There was no continuous monitoring of flow rate, and this was not a fixed-displacement pump. It is not an effort to discount the test as a whole, but to merely demonstrate the problems that arise when measurements are replaced with assumptions. I could've said that while Rossi and Levi were watching the temperature rise, Focardi thought that it would be a good time to fill the hot tub. It's lack of official reports and data that raise doubts to the 18 hour test. It effectively lives as an anecdote. Assuming the numbers supplied were true, and not tarnished by fraud or slight-of-hand, they do show remarkable energy production. Some skepticism is healthy here. Most skeptics will be satisfied by a properly documented, sufficiently long, single-phase test by a neutral third-party (hopefully a few of them with controls). Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short time. About 20 minutes, I think. Long enough to be certain it is real, with this equipment, at this flow rate. Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and that would be for a long time, relatively. They show both the instantaneous rate and total water consumption. The ones I have seen do. These are the cheapest sub-meters on the market, for $50. (Sub-meters are used, for example, in individual apartments or in a boiler room for one boiler.) However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short time. Gremlins? Cold fusion, obviously. Do you think one thing caused the 17 kW and something else caused the bigger heat burst? Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables. There are not too many variables. The same 4 as ever: inlet temp, outlet temp, flow and input power. 20 minutes at this flow rate is plenty of time to be sure. However, there may be some heat going from the cell directly to the outlet thermocouple in this case, which would exaggerate the heat. That cannot be a problem for the 17 kW observed for of the test, before and after the transient. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Robert's statement here, if true, would be tragically hilarious! It's always possible that A.R.'s too stubborn to listen to criticism and, in an effort to turn the E-Cat down, - ended up turning it off. That would be one for the history books! -Mark
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I found some Julian Brown here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=7#comment-21219 He starts a long discussion here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=5#comment-44502
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I did not find any name Julian Brown related to EPO, except for an inventor with this name: http://www.google.com.br/search?q=site:www.epo.org+julian+brownnum=100hl=pt-BRsafe=offrls=com.microsoft:en-USrlz=1I7GGLL_pt-BRprmd=ivnsofilter=0biw=1280bih=653 http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensource=hpbiw=1280bih=653q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.patentepi.com+julian+brownoq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.patentepi.com+julian+brownaq=faqi=aql=gs_sm=egs_upl=16288l69643l0l69909l21l20l0l14l0l0l3439l5215l8-1.1l2 http://www.google.com/search?hl=ensource=hpbiw=1280bih=653q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.suepo.org+julian+brownoq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.suepo.org+julian+brownaq=faqi=aql=gs_sm=egs_upl=3345l18046l0l18303l21l20l0l12l0l0l2996l2996l9-1l1 http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offbiw=1280bih=653q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fpublic.ffpe-epo.org%2F+julian+brownoq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fpublic.ffpe-epo.org%2F+julian+brownaq=faqi=aql=gs_sm=egs_upl=286423l291031l0l291599l19l18l0l12l0l1l930l2463l6-3l3 http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offbiw=1280bih=653q=%22EPO%22+%22julian+brown%22oq=%22EPO%22+%22julian+brown%22aq=faqi=aql=gs_sm=egs_upl=57848l59018l0l65115l2l2l0l0l0l0l1299l1299l7-1l1 http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offbiw=1280bih=653q=%22EPO%22+julian+brownoq=%22EPO%22+julian+brownaq=faqi=aql=gs_sm=sgs_upl=12759l13371l0l14336l2l2l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0 http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offbiw=1280bih=653q=%22patent+office%22+julian+brownoq=%22patent+office%22+julian+brownaq=faqi=aql=gs_sm=egs_upl=19600l21618l0l21780l13l8l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On 2011-07-17 22:16, Daniel Rocha wrote: I did not find any name Julian Brown related to EPO, except for an inventor with this name: Then it's possible that it isn't his real name or that he isn't related with EPO or other patent offices. If the latter is the case, then I guess Rossi might be right when he says that there people trying to actively discredit him or steal some of his trade secrets. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: Hello group, Andrea Rossi July 17th, 2011 at 1:54 PM Dear Paul Story: Very funny: this clown, named Julian Brown, wrote me saying he was an officer of the Patent Office and that he wanted give me suggestions. I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him ahd he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invired hin to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. He saw nothing, I said nothing. We agreed, after a short meeting, that he would have mailed to me a text of a patent that he thought would have many probabilities to be accepted. After some day I received from this clown some text simply ridiculous, and in these text there was written that my patent was based on patents made from my competitors. I made a research and discovered that the patents of my competitors he referred to had not been granted, but had been refused. Of course he has been sent from such competitors to spy and to try to mess up with patents. Conclusion: he lies when he says he made a test, he lies when he says he has seen an E-Cat enough to say anything about it (just has taken a 30 seconds look), he lies if he says he has seen the steam, he saw nothing because the circuit was ermetically closed, he lies when he says that he is or has been an officer of the Patent Office, he lies when he says he is an expert of patents, he lies when he says that my Competitor he works with has a patent on this matter granted in 1995. It is clear that somebody, desperate of the fact that a 1 MW plant is close to be started up, is trying to use all the method of a snake to try to put clubs in the wheels. But all this is just clownery: my plants will give evidence in the real marlet of the validity of my effect. It is also clear that at this point I cannot give any more info or courtesy visit before the start up of my 1 MW plant. Someone is lying, but I'm not convinced it's Brown. At least, except for the exact timing, Rossi does not really contradict Brown's list of reasons re-presented here: Imagine my astonishment and disappointment on finding that Rossi makes no attempt to monitor the dryness of the output and there was no appropiate equipment visible on the premises. It should not take very long to determine that Rossi does not monitor dryness. We all knew that in advance anyway, because Rossi doesn't even claim to use equipment capable of monitoring steam dryness. It follows that Rossi can not possibly know whether he has 1,2 5 or even 10 percent unvaporized phase by weight. Passive observers like myself, Krivit, Essen Kullander have even less chance of determining this crucial parameter. I would say, we can't know that it isn't 90% liquid by weight, which is almost certainly the case. Even worse, since the output tube went straight through a hole in the wall to be vented/flushed outside, it could have been pure hot water and nobody, least of all Rossi, could possibly know. Ah yes, or 100% liquid for that matter. Although the stable temperature suggests the presence of at least some steam. And some of the demo videos also show small puffs of steam consistent with a few hundred watts of power or so. Basically, the whole set up defies even approximate quantitative calorimetric analysis. That can be seen from the videos; a 30 s glance is not required. Another odd thing was that Rossi pumped up the electrical power for a minute or two shortly before turning it off and allowing me to see that the water kept an output temperature of 100.5 for a couple of minutes. That contradicts Rossi's claim of a 30 second glance. If true though, it is an odd thing for Rossi to do, because if the steam was dry, pumping up the electrical power would increase the temperature well above boiling; it would not keep to 100.5 for a couple of minutes. The final clincher for me is that Rossi made a point of telling me that he was currently vaporizing 15 litres / hour. BUT, the peristaltic pump was exactly the same one he uses in all demonstrations and it was pulsing about once every 2.5 seconds. I make that 3 litres / hour, only 20 percent of what Rossi told me verbally. Once again, Rossi is caught in a flow rate exaggeration. And this observation would not take more than 30 s, so it doesn't contradict Rossi. I can hardly wait to hear Rossi's first excuse for the delay of the MW plant, or for the claim that some sort of shower of hot water consistent with the input electrical power represents a MW of dry steam; a bogus 10 kW ecat writ large.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Julian Brown wrote: Basically, the whole set up defies even approximate quantitative calorimetric analysis. This is nonsensical speculation. E-Cat is designed to be a standard boiling water reactor and boiling water reactor is exactly similar setup than a kettle. And we know that tea pots do not produce wet steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is very simple and very basic physics. Also we can calculate the internal pressure, because we know that the opening for the hose is 10-25 mm wide. This is very simple mathematics. For the measurements itself even thermometer is irrelevant, because you can inspect visually the dryness of the steam. At least I can measure when I am cooking pasta, and I am performing empirical analysis when the water has reached approximately 100°C temperature. Unlike Julian suggest, I certainly do not need a caloric meter for cooking pasta! It is just, that this whole speculation has been gone far too complex, because certain two dimensional scientists lacks common sense, so that they fail even rudimentary skills, like they are unable to cook pasta without proper calorimetric analysis. This is just silly. The small chimney will result in a small overpressure and a boiling temperature 100 Celsius, so I am not impressed by 100.5 Celsius Chimney is the widest part of the E-Cat. However the opening for the hose is small, perhaps 15-25 mm and it may rise the boiling point to 99.9-100.2 °C. He certainly has a charming manner; I liked him and would never suggest he has criminal intent. In the USA, maximum sentence from fraud is 150 years in prison. I am sure that sig. Rossi has prepared himself for a fraud. In other words, these are extremely serious and insulting accusations. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
http://ecatnews.com/?p=489#comment-85 Julian Brown July 17, 2011 - 10:25 pm Can i ask you, for the sake of my family, to remove my submission to your blog. It was sent in good faith, because I really care about the LENR field and don’t want it to suffer yet another set back, but I see I may have stirred up a hornet’s nest. Julian Brown end So the truth does not matter to JB? T
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 04:30 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-07-17 22:16, Daniel Rocha wrote: I did not find any name Julian Brown related to EPO, except for an inventor with this name: Then it's possible that it isn't his real name or that he isn't related with EPO or other patent offices. If the latter is the case, then I guess Rossi might be right when he says that there people trying to actively discredit him or steal some of his trade secrets. That's quite a conclusion to jump to. Julian Brown claimed to be employed by the EPO, but made no claim to be representing them. He's also asked that his blog post be taken down: Can i ask you, for the sake of my family, to remove my submission to your blog. It was sent in good faith, because I really care about the LENR field and don't want it to suffer yet another set back, but I see I may have stirred up a hornet's nest. Julian Brown It's too late, Julian, the 'cat's out of the bag. Good luck. I tend to believe you, your story is credible, and Rossi's response is atrociously obnoxious, worse than his paranoid response to Krivit. Rossi, roughly, confirmed your story. It doesn't make sense, if you were employed by a competitor to steal his secret, that you would expose him like this. Your comments are not outside what has already been noted by many, though you added some personal details that amount to little more than Rossi not being careful what he says to you. Your theory in your blog post was this: My hunch is that he did make a discovery that goes beyond the level acheived by Piantelli and Focardi, but that he got too enthusiastic too soon, before he had really done due diligence. He is now trapped in the web of commitments and claims he has made. A tragic figure really. I've stated that as a possibility, because this has happened to inventors before, who are tempted to amplify test results because they've become trapped in overenthusiastic claims. I've suggested the possibility -- that is all that it is, this isn't an accusation -- in response to those who express disbelief that an inventor would set himself up for humiliation when the fraud is exposed. In this scenario, Rossi believes that he found something, but, hey, there are some kinks to be worked out and people are clamoring for a demo, Focardi wants a demo, so ... here's a demo. And when it's pointed out how shallow that demo is, here is another, and another. Each one mysteriously defective in what is demonstrated. What that means is far from clear. But fraud isn't as impossible as some claim. Now he's got a perfect excuse to avoid any more demos, the snakes Krivit and Brown. It is tragic, actually, if he believes it, and tragic in a different way if he's lying. Krivit wasn't working for a competitor of Rossi, and I quite doubt that Brown was, either. Brown's story is quite believable. At some point Kullander and Essen will wake up and see how their names are being used to validate Rossi. Unless they have seen more than they are letting on. I want to point out that Rossi = paranoid and suspicious, shady and evasive, does not prove that Rossi is wrong. Maybe Kullander and Essen know something we don't! Is Krivit asking them? Someone should be! Where is Lewan, lately?
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 07:19 PM 7/17/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Julian Brown wrote: Basically, the whole set up defies even approximate quantitative calorimetric analysis. This is nonsensical speculation. E-Cat is designed to be a standard boiling water reactor and boiling water reactor is exactly similar setup than a kettle. And we know that tea pots do not produce wet steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is very simple and very basic physics. Jouni, teapots don't have a fixed water flow input. Rather, water is added when the level declines. A teapot with a fixed flow input could overflow, indeed, if that's the only way that water is added, we can predict that, unless there is some complex feedback mechanism either on flow or on heat vs water level, the water will either boil away and the chimney temperature will increase, or water will start to overflow, some portion of the water will flow out. You've apparently missed a lot of the discussion here. There is an issue with wet vs dry steam, and you are probably correct about the steam value, but all bets are off if water actually starts to overflow. Also we can calculate the internal pressure, because we know that the opening for the hose is 10-25 mm wide. This is very simple mathematics. There is some simple math that seems to have been missed by some. It's been alleged that the temperature of the chimney, say 100.5, indicates dry steam. The problem with this is that dry steam above boiling would require a chamber hotter than boiling, this can't happen unless the chamber substantially empties. No, that temperature is almost certainly the equilibrium temperature for wet steam (maybe only a little wet!) at the pressure in the chimney. For the measurements itself even thermometer is irrelevant, because you can inspect visually the dryness of the steam. At least I can measure when I am cooking pasta, and I am performing empirical analysis when the water has reached approximately 100°C temperature. Unlike Julian suggest, I certainly do not need a caloric meter for cooking pasta! You can see that you are boiling water. However, we can't see the water boiling in the E-cat, can we? What we really can't see is if there is any overflow water, it's been concealed, with only sporadic observation in a way that could hide a *lot* of overflow water. At the flow rate in one of the demos, I forget which, I calculated that the hose would fill at the rate of a meter per four minutes. That's plenty of time to empty the hose, as Rossi does in his video -- and as Lewan mentions in his report on the April demos -- and then display the hose for quite some time, with no water coming out the end. It is just, that this whole speculation has been gone far too complex, because certain two dimensional scientists lacks common sense, so that they fail even rudimentary skills, like they are unable to cook pasta without proper calorimetric analysis. This is just silly. Aw shucks. I can cook pasta, I just don't cook it for myself. Low carb diet. I cook it for my kids. I have a LabJack with some great thermocouples, I get perfect pasta every time. Okay, kidding. I do have the LabJack, but not for making pasta. Come on, these arguments are really silly. The small chimney will result in a small overpressure and a boiling temperature 100 Celsius, so I am not impressed by 100.5 Celsius Chimney is the widest part of the E-Cat. However the opening for the hose is small, perhaps 15-25 mm and it may rise the boiling point to 99.9-100.2 °C. Something like that. I think it's 16 mm, maybe. He certainly has a charming manner; I liked him and would never suggest he has criminal intent. In the USA, maximum sentence from fraud is 150 years in prison. I am sure that sig. Rossi has prepared himself for a fraud. In other words, these are extremely serious and insulting accusations. Julian Brown has stated what many stated, obvious deficiencies in the demonstrations. He speculates on a possible cause, and might have been incautious about that. The insulting here, though, is far heavier on Rossi's side. If you don't see that, I'd suggest looking again! Brown's report leaves open the possibility that Rossi is for real, and he seems to think that there is excess heat. Yet he's being treated as a clown and snake.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 07:20 PM 7/17/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: http://ecatnews.com/?p=489#comment-85 Julian Brown July 17, 2011 - 10:25 pm Can i ask you, for the sake of my family, to remove my submission to your blog. It was sent in good faith, because I really care about the LENR field and don't want it to suffer yet another set back, but I see I may have stirred up a hornet's nest. Julian Brown end So the truth does not matter to JB? That's quite a question to derive from this request. Julian may have realized that he could be in hot water for even having visited Rossi to try to help him with patent issues, it depends on his job, and he's apparently got a family to support, my guess. Did you read, Terry, what had been put up on the blog just before his request? I don't wonder that he's worried. It's too late, so I suggest that he sit back and enjoy the ride. It could get bumpy, but I don't believe he did anything seriously wrong. If anything wrong at all.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On 2011-07-18 02:16, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: That's quite a conclusion to jump to. Julian Brown claimed to be employed by the EPO, but made no claim to be representing them. He's also asked that his blog post be taken down: I didn't investigate myself, and I was only talking about a (admittedly remote) possibility. It's rumored (to tell the truth more than just that - so Passerini often writes in his 22passi blog - this info unofficially and confidentially comes to him from the Bologna E-Cat RD team by the way) that there actually are people trying to damage and discredit Rossi and his work. [snip] I've stated that as a possibility, because this has happened to inventors before, who are tempted to amplify test results because they've become trapped in overenthusiastic claims. I've suggested the possibility -- that is all that it is, this isn't an accusation -- in response to those who express disbelief that an inventor would set himself up for humiliation when the fraud is exposed. Well, it doesn't look like Rossi is trying to avoid overenthusiastic claims. He's just written this on his blog several minutes ago, for example: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=2#comment-53875 Andrea Rossi July 17th, 2011 at 7:19 PM Dear Nikita Alexand: I cannot give information regarding the reactor’s operation. By the way: in the stress tyests we are doing in this period with our modules we are making energy without energy supply from the reasistances for most of time. This answers, partially, to your questions. I am sorry if I can’t give more to you. Warm regards, A.R. So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time would have rendered pointless most of the discussions and criticisms on steam issues made so far, even Julian Brown's. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Did you read, Terry, what had been put up on the blog just before his request? I don't wonder that he's worried. No, sorry Abd, are you speaking of the Admin post; or of all the references by Daniel? If the latter, I will take a look at them. Thanks! T
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
2011/7/18 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: teapots don't have a fixed water flow input. Rather, water is added when the level declines. This is irrelevant difference. Water flow is there only to ensure that water level does not drop below reactor core, so that core does not expose to air. Water is not there to demonstrate how much E-Cat produces energy, but it's main function is to control reactor temperature and prevent reactor meltdown. This is the very essence of boiling water reactors. See, the purpose water for measurements is irrelevant component, but it is used, because water is very convenient substance as boiling water reactor coolant. That is because the enthalpy of water phase change is so high. This enables to divert much of the heat energy away from reactor core while the temperature of coolant remains constant. This is very crusial, because according to sig. Rossi, his E-Cat is very sensitive for internal temperature of reactor. The problem with this is that dry steam above boiling would require a chamber hotter than boiling, this can't happen unless the chamber substantially empties. It is perfectly possible that pressure rises inside E-Cat so that boiling point is at 100.5°C or 0.8°C higher. But what is impossible without very special setup, is that reactor produces wet steam and such a high pressure simultaneously, that it could cause boiling point to rise. If steam is very wet, then the energy output of the reactor is very low. And it cannot heat up reactor that much that it will cause significant pressure build up. Pressure build up depends on that there is significant amount of dry steam present! But, it is possible that if heating element is very hot, steam temperature can rise somewhat over boiling, because surface tension of water enable the bubble formation. And this gives some time for heating element to heat steam directly in gaseous phase although heating element is under water. Therefore it should not be impossible, that steam temperature finds its equilibrium that is 0.1-2.0 °C higher than actual boiling point. This depends on what is the temperature difference between heating element and boiling water. A teapot with a fixed flow input could overflow, indeed, if that's the only way that water is added, we can predict that, unless there is some complex feedback mechanism either on flow or on heat vs water level, the water will either boil away and the chimney temperature will increase, or water will start to overflow, some portion of the water will flow out. You do not have any evidence for that E-Cat can overflow, therefore this is just empty speculation. If you could even speculate with this possibility seriously, you should know what is the inner volume of the E-Cat. But you do not know even such a rudimentary detail about the E-Cat. This kind of speculation is useless and nonproductive, because first of all, temperature reading would be below 99.7°C, because there cannot be pressure build up without intensive production of dry steam. But as I stated this problem is easy to fix, that you just introduce a secret heating element near thermometer that feeds false temperature readings. On the other hand, if E-Cat is a hoax, it far more easy to construct such a way that Rossi just hides a internal hydrogen tank. E.g. I have suggested that the stand where E-Cats are mounted could be hollow hand that would be easy way to hide a hydrogen bottle. Therefore Kullander's and Essén's observations about the E-Cat has exactly zero scientific value, because they cannot tell a part, whether they witnessed a catalyzed hydrogen burning or catalyzed cold fusion. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time would have rendered pointless most of the discussions and criticisms on steam issues made so far, even Julian Brown's. Now consider this possibility: Rossi wanted this exact situation, that he'd look like a complete scammer. He need to make the demo for some reason, whether it was personal for Focardi, or whatever, it doesn't matter, but he had a contrary need, to throw others off track, to inhibit attempts to replicate what he's doing. If he looks like a fraud and a scammer, that will seriously impact the ability of others to get funding to try to figure out what he's doing. It make sense. Besides, he gets to have fun, and he anticipates laughing at all these clowns when he demonstrates the Big One. Look at Rossi's history, it doesn't take a genius at psychology to understand this scenario. Problem is, this doesn't give me any information about the E-Cat itself, because there are other possibilities, such as a true fraud, or, more likely, I don't know what to call it, but others have speculated this and Julian Brown comes up with this possibility: Rossi over-extended himself, and needs to gain time to fix problems that he thought would not be problems. He fully expects to solve them, but Apparently this has happened before with inventors, who then were drawn into fakes. Just until they fix the bugs, of course. It's just temporary, they tell themselves I don't find it possible to disentangle this mess. Nothing I've seen proves fakery, and nothing I've seen proves reality. Time will, however, demonstrate what is real and what is not, that's a practical certainty. Here, I can agree with Rossi, we will (probably) know by October. At lesat we'll know if he met his confidently asserted deadline!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Julian Brown wrote: Basically, the whole set up defies even approximate quantitative calorimetric analysis. This is nonsensical speculation. E-Cat is designed to be a standard boiling water reactor and boiling water reactor is exactly similar setup than a kettle. No. The ecat is very different from a kettle. And we know that tea pots do not produce wet steam. Well, they can, but not as wet as an ecat, because they don't have a pump forcing the fluid through at a fixed rate. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is very simple and very basic physics. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Lomax seems to think I should try harder. You say the ecat cannot produce a mixture of liquid and gas (i.e. wet steam) with any appreciable amount of liquid. Now, everyone seems to agree on the amount of power needed to bring the water to just below the boiling point in the ecat, and the amount required to vaporize it all. In the Krivit demo, the first is 600 W, and the second 5 kW (round figures); in the January demo the first is 1.8 kW, and the second is 12 kW. So that means that if the ecat produces power in between those values, then a mixture of liquid and steam must come out of it, otherwise the powers don't balance. You say this can't happen, so you are saying that it is physically impossible for an ecat to produce power in a certain forbidden region. So when the water begins to boil, the power toggles discontinuously from 600W to 5 kW, or from 1.8 kW to 12 kW. The forbidden region depends not just on the particular ecat, but also on the flow rate Rossi chooses to use. And you know that the ecat has a forbidden power range, which is mysteriously affected by the flow rate, because when you make pasta or tea, the steam is dry. Have I got it straight? Because if so, then I think the idea is whacked. If not -- if you think the ecat *can* produce intermediate powers -- please try to explain what would come out of the ecat if it were producing 2 kW power (in the Krivit demo). Presumably, if there is no forbidden region, it must pass that power level. It is just, that this whole speculation has been gone far too complex, because certain two dimensional scientists lacks common sense, so that they fail even rudimentary skills, like they are unable to cook pasta without proper calorimetric analysis. This is just silly. It is simple physics, as you said, but you will not learn the necessary physics in the kitchen. Cooking pasta does not give you the necessary knowledge or credentials to prove the ecat is legit. Take a freshman course in physics, and then come back. The small chimney will result in a small overpressure and a boiling temperature 100 Celsius, so I am not impressed by 100.5 Celsius Chimney is the widest part of the E-Cat. However the opening for the hose is small, perhaps 15-25 mm and it may rise the boiling point to 99.9-100.2 °C. I believe he is talking about the vertical height: At a depth of 30 cm, the bp increases by a degree. In the USA, maximum sentence from fraud is 150 years in prison. I am sure that sig. Rossi has prepared himself for a fraud. In other words, these are extremely serious and insulting accusations. Expressing skepticism is not an accusation of fraud.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: You've apparently missed a lot of the discussion here. There is an issue with wet vs dry steam, and you are probably correct about the steam value, but all bets are off if water actually starts to overflow. There is no reason the steam can't be more than 90% wet (90% liquid by mass). If steam and liquid water are forced through a conduit, the fluid is defined as wet steam, regardless of the extent of their mixing, but it is entirely possible that the mixing is quite thorough, with a mist entrained in the steam, at least at the exit of the ecat.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time would have rendered pointless most of the discussions and criticisms on steam issues made so far, even Julian Brown's. And yet, instead of doing that, and really putting Brown in his place, he calls him names and makes himself look bad. Why would he be so upset with Brown, if he had the means to prove him devastatingly wrong?
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time would have rendered pointless most of the discussions and criticisms on steam issues made so far, even Julian Brown's. Now consider this possibility: Rossi wanted this exact situation, that he'd look like a complete scammer. He need to make the demo for some reason, whether it was personal for Focardi, or whatever, it doesn't matter, but he had a contrary need, to throw others off track, to inhibit attempts to replicate what he's doing. If he looks like a fraud and a scammer, that will seriously impact the ability of others to get funding to try to figure out what he's doing. The only problem with this theory is that it doesn't explain his boast about running the ecat without input, or for that matter, getting 120 kW in the 18-hour test.
