subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:Minor progress"


 Any scam must obey the laws of physics.


Oh yes.  But you don't necessarily know which laws are used to deceive you.


 All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
 testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
 somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . .
  means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump
 of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it
 does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know
 anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in
 the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?


The way I said many times.  You can falsify the premise that Rossi is
scamming easily enough to a huge improbability simply by getting *one*
independent test from a credible and reliable source unrelated to Rossi in
any way.  I've already suggested Earthtech.  Cal Tech, ORNL, Sandia  --
and I guess NASA (before this story I didn't know they'd test ideas like
this) -- all and many more could do it and would be happy to.  All Rossi
has to do is get one good test and my proposition that he may be a scammer
has been falsified.

What we argue here is about opinion.  You're very confident that your use
of available measurements and results along with your knowledge of physics
and chemistry is sufficient to rule out a scam.  Others including me are
not.  Perhaps in the past, we were fooled, bamboozled and flummoxed by more
artful people than you have :-)



   They may be different and multiple each and every time.


 Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham's razor. Especially, stop
 multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
 in principle. This is -- literally -- like debating how many angels can
 dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you
 have proposed NOTHING.


Not true.  Ockham has nothing to do with deception.  And it's not
inviolable. And I didn't say it *was* stage magic.  I said that like stage
magic, it may be an illusion and you may simply not have deduced how the
illusion is performed.  I also said that like stage magic, the illusion may
be different each time Rossi demos and may involve a combination of tricks
and in some cases luck.   That I can't guess how it was done may reflect
only on my incomplete education and Rossi's better knowledge and skills in
specific areas of endeavor.

It also involves the politeness of the audience and their concern that they
may not be invited again.  That rules out harsh questions and requests such
as:

Please disassemble this device down to (but not past) the place where the
secret core is located so we can see nothing was hidden inside.  and

Please don't stop the run until we have gone much more than long enough to
rule out any source of energy other than a nuclear process.   and

Please show that the measuring instruments for the output power work
properly by running a blank and powering the device only from the
(carefully metered) electrical heater

I wish someone had been less polite.   When Rossi was asked these things
early on on his blog, he shined them on as unnecessary.  In his usual
style, it was a one or two word reply with no explanation.  Later, he
simply didn't publish the question.



   Similarly I don't know how famous magicians do their illusions.


 I do know. You can look it up in Wikipedia. When you look inside the
 stage apparatus, the methods are immediately obvious. Not one is
 sophisticated or mysterious. Some of them have been use for hundreds of
 years; some go back thousands of years. If this the only proof you can come
 up with -- that you personally do not know how stage magicians do their
 illusions -- you have disproved your own point. Anyone who makes a casual
 study of stage magic will know that the methods are dead simple and cannot
 be used to hide a wire in Rossi's reactor, once you open it up.


Lots of luck deducing or finding the newest illusions.  Apparently you have
not seen some recent really good stage magic.  It's quite puzzling.  You
know it has to be an illusion but it is hard even to imagine how it might
be done.  And often, if you do find out, it turns out to be a much more
complicated and difficult to perform method than you would have thought of
and one that requires much planning and practice.  I think it may be the
same with Rossi.

Let me ask you this:  if nothing is hidden in Rossi's larger E-cats, why
does he forbid photos when they're open and why does he not take them apart
completely to show what's inside?  Yes, I know it takes time.  Poor Rossi
-- he never has enough time.  But if the secret is only in the contents of
the core, as Rossi claims, why has he never even shown a core?   But all
these issues become a side show once one independent test is done.

To sum up, the problem with Rossi's story is that there are too many things
that don't hang

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-11 Thread Alan J Fletcher


At 08:54 AM 11/11/2011, Mary Yugo wrote:
To sum up, the problem with Rossi's story is that there are too many 
things that don't hang together.  The short runs,


Lewan called the end of the first self-sustaining experiment. Oct 6 
was also done to a timetable, allowing for weighing at the beginning 
and disassembly at the end.


Both Levi and Lewan were given a second-shot at testing.

the lack of independent verification, the poor measurement 
methodology and record keeping,


With the possible exception of the Oct 6 run, all of the 
investigators (not Krivit -- that was a demonstration) were allowed 
to bring their own equipment. eg Bolgna brought their own. Lewan 
brought his own calibrated thermocouples.


For Oct 6, Hand-made thermocouples can be tricky to set up
http://www.phase-technologies.com/html/vol._6_no._7.html
http://www.capgo.com/Resources/Temperature/Thermocouple/Thermocouple.html
http://www.omega.com/temperature/z/pdf/z021-032.pdf

so Rossi made sure they worked to his satisfaction, wrapped them in 
insulation, and then unwrapped everything at the end ... and allowed 
Lewan to do an ice-calibration of the thermocouples (which failed.).


None of those failures are specifically Rossi's fault.

You then have to believe that the experimenters were independent, but 
not very good. Or you have to buy into Krivit's Krusade, that they 
are all in collusion.
(I've had enough email exchanges with Lewan to trust him. Ditto with 
my secret observer on Oct 6)


and most of all the mysterious last experiment/test/demo where none 
of the visitors was allowed to see anything at all to verify that 
the device operated as claimed.  That's pretty amazing.  Why were 
they there again?


Rossi first promised people they could come and witness the demo when 
it was to be done at Defkalion.  Then again, when he though it would 
be in the US.  When he finally got a top secret customer he was in 
a bind: he didn't want to break his promises, and they didn't want it 
shown at all.


So they arrived at a compromise.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

 Both Levi and Lewan were given a second-shot at testing.


Do you mean Levi was given a chance to repeat and record properly his long
high power experiment and refused?  If so, WHY?!?!

|  With the possible exception of the Oct 6 run, all of the investigators
(not Krivit -- that was a demonstration) were allowed to bring their own
equipment.

I have more of a problem with the output power measurement method
(evaporation of water) and the lack of a blank than I do with the
instruments.  Except for using the Testo device to determine quality of
steam.  It's not designed to do that.  IMO the whole idea of using
evaporation of water is silly and error prone.  Grabowski's white paper
clearly demonstrated the potential for errors of 8x in Rossi's method.  A
much better method is to keep the coolant liquid (by increasing its flow
rate) and simply measure the delta T across the device in the liquid.
That's what Levi supposedly did.  It's a pity he did not repeat it.

Grabowski et al:  http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf


 You then have to believe that the experimenters were independent, but not
 very good. Or you have to buy into Krivit's Krusade, that they are all in
 collusion.


It's not independence if they use Rossi's venue, his input power, his
coolant supply and especially his test method.  I have no suspicion that
Lewan is in collusion with Rossi.  That would make no sense.  I do think he
may have been bamboozled by Rossi.  IMO, the investigators who allowed the
test to stop after a few hours were wrong.  A device claimed to be designed
to run six months without attention should be able to run much longer.
Running it much much longer tends to make it more difficult to fake.


|   Rossi first promised people they could come and witness the demo when
it was to be done at Defkalion.  Then again, when he though it would be in
the US.  When he finally got a top secret customer he was in a bind: he
didn't want to break his promises, and they didn't want it shown at all.

Let me see about that compromise.  It involved none of the scientists or
reporters being allowed to follow the progress of the experiment and the
instrument readings-- not a one.  It involved nobody seeing how the device
was controlled.  It involved a huge diesel generator connected to the
device and running the entire time and it involved only half the power
production claimed and that for only a few hours.  I hope nobody thinks
this was a convincing demonstration.

And of course, as Jed pointed out early, it's not even a good idea to test
at that power level.  It's much easier and just as convincing to get
accurate measurements at power levels of 10 kW or even 1 kW if the tests
are properly done for long enough by reliable and credible, highly
competent, labs or universities.  IMO, nothing about the megawatt demo made
any sense whatsoever if Rossi's claims are real.  Rossi did not enhance his
credibility with this dog and pony show--  he would have been better off
keeping it secret except for a press release.  Anonymous client?  For the
world's first megawatt nuclear fusion generator? And he just carts it off
without permits or further fanfare?  Just like that.  Your really believe
it?

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-11 Thread Jed Rothwell


Mary Yugo wrote:


If there is no way you or any of us can know anything at all about
this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in the
universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?


The way I said many times.  You can falsify the premise that Rossi is 
scamming easily enough to a huge improbability simply by getting *one* 
independent test from a credible . . .


This is a completely different subject. Please do not mix up unrelated 
topics. I asked how a person can test or falsify _your_ assertion about 
stage magic. I did not ask how Rossi can falsify his claims.


If you will not cite a specific stage magic technique, there is no way 
anyone can determine whether you are making a valid point or not. All 
scientific assertions must be falsifiable.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

 This is a completely different subject. Please do not mix up unrelated
 topics. I asked how a person can test or falsify *your* assertion about
 stage magic. I did not ask how Rossi can falsify his claims.

 If you will not cite a specific stage magic technique, there is no way
 anyone can determine whether you are making a valid point or not. All
 scientific assertions must be falsifiable.



I'm sure you have a valid point but it seems to be hitting my blind spot.
Maybe you or someone else can explain it to me with different words.  Seems
to me:

Claim:   Rossi may be faking this -- I don't know how.

Falsification:  Someone independent and credible tested the device and
determined by this method (yadadada) it's real and not fake.

I think that works but maybe not.  I just don't understand your issues with
it.  I'm being sincere and not sarcastic.  I don't get what you want.   Of
course I don't know how Rossi might be cheating.  That doesn't mean he's
not.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-11 Thread Jed Rothwell


Mary Yugo wrote:


Claim:   Rossi may be faking this -- I don't know how.

Falsification:  Someone independent and credible tested the device and 
determined by this method (yadadada) it's real and not fake.


Right. Exactly. And in my opinion Rossi did this on Oct. 6. I think he 
provided irrefutable proof that it is real. In your opinion he did not. 
But that is a separate issue. Let's move on to:



I think that works but maybe not.  I just don't understand your issues 
with it.  I'm being sincere and not sarcastic.


Of course. I am suggesting that you are making a logic error, not that 
you are insincere.



I don't get what you want.   Of course I don't know how Rossi might be 
cheating.  That doesn't mean he's not.


Here is my point. if you do not know how he might be cheating, then it 
is not logical for you to propose this as a hypothesis to be debated 
here. You can say it is your gut feeling he is cheating. That's fine. 
That's an informal judgment. We welcome that here. But let us not 
confuse a gut feeling with a scientific hypothesis.


In a formal scientific debate, every assertion or hypothesis has to be 
specific enough to be tested: that is, proved or disproved. If you do 
not know of any method of cheating, and you cannot specify any details 
about how it might work, there is no way for the rest of us to judge 
whether you are right or wrong.


This is an issue relating to logic and theory of science. It has nothing 
to do with Rossi per se.


As I mentioned, there are other fields in which arguments do not have to 
be strictly falsifiable, such as religion and literature.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-11 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-11-10 09:49 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:

Does anyone seriously doubt that if Fioravanti is telling the truth, there
can be any doubt the 1 MW reactor is real? Are you seriously suggesting
that a measurement using standard industrial techniques, performed by an
expert, showing 66 kWh input and 2,635 kWh might be in error?!? You can't
be serous. If that is the last remaining argument you have against cold
fusion, you have jumped the shark.


I like that expression jumping the shark.  Does it mean the same as
screwing the pooch?


It means the voice entry system has added its own improvement to the 
original statement.


An obvious guess is that the shark was supposed to be something a 
train rides on.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

 Here is my point. if you do not know how he might be cheating, then it
 is not logical for you to propose this as a hypothesis to be debated here.
 You can say it is your gut feeling he is cheating. That's fine. That's an
 informal judgment. We welcome that here. But let us not confuse a gut
 feeling with a scientific hypothesis.


I'm sorry, I still don't see the difference.  It's actually not even a gut
feeling.  It's just a possibility I think needs to be seriously
considered.  As to whether it rises to a scientific hypothesis, I think so
but I don't think whether it is or not is an important issue.


 In a formal scientific debate, every assertion or hypothesis has to be
 specific enough to be tested: that is, proved or disproved. If you do not
 know of any method of cheating, and you cannot specify any details about
 how it might work, there is no way for the rest of us to judge whether you
 are right or wrong.


That's the part I don't get.  If Rossi gets independent proof, I'm wrong,
am I not?   Then you do have a way to judge whether I'm right or wrong.  If
Rossi doesn't do it, then right -- you can't judge.  But even if I
suggested a way to cheat that made sense, that wouldn't prove that Rossi is
getting his results that way, would it?  So I just don't see why it's
important to do that!


 This is an issue relating to logic and theory of science. It has nothing
 to do with Rossi per se.
 As I mentioned, there are other fields in which arguments do not have to
 be strictly falsifiable, such as religion and literature.


OK. I did take a class in theory of knowledge and philosophy of science
once but it was a while back.   Meanwhile, I am still concerned Mr. Rossi
is running some sort of scam.  I'd love to see definitive proof that he's
not and I know that's shared by a lot of the people here.  So I hope
everyone who can is pressuring him to get independent testing instead of
simply congratulating the guy on the wonders he has wrought, as so many
wide eyed admirers are doing all over the internet!

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

 I like that expression jumping the shark.  Does it mean the same as
 screwing the pooch?


 It means the voice entry system has added its own improvement to the
 original statement.
 An obvious guess is that the shark was supposed to be something a train
 rides on.


Too bad.  It was fun the other way.  Maybe we can start a new expression.
I think it's Levi and Lewan who jumped the shark but that's just a casual
opinion.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-11 Thread Jouni Valkonen

Mary, your requirement for blank test run is unreasonable, but you are
misunderstanding the reason why blank tests are used in science. Blank runs
are used when we are measuring effects that may consist on multiple unknown
variables and with controls we try to eliminate those variables that we are
not interested.

Usually science is messy thing when we are observing something new and
unexplored. Effects are subtle and they are hard to differentiate from
background noise and correlating effects such as placebo and other biased
errors. Therefore it is required to ensure with (blind) controls, that what
is actually measured is the effect what we are interested on.

In this case, however we are measuring very clear effect that is total
enthalpy that is measured with accuracy of one megajoule. This effect
consist only two variables that are energy input and anomalous excess heat.
Because we know or we can assume that input energy source is from electric
band heater that works with efficiency of 95% or more. Therefore we can
just assume that electric band heater works with 100% efficiency to be on
safe side.  And we can then subtract energy input from total enthalpy to
get the anomalous excess heat.

Of course running eight hour control test would be informative, because it
would give us valuable information about the efficiency of band heaters.
However, we are not interested of measuring the efficiency of band heaters,
but we can just assume it to be 100%. Therefore control experiment is not
required.

It is 1000 times more useful to run one 16 hour real test than to run one
real 8 hour test and one 8 hour blank run. If you really hard think this
you find this to be even more than 1000 times useful.

Accurate calorimetry is extremely simple and own instruments that are
required to be brought are thermometer, stopwatch and a water bucket. All
of them were on Rossi's allowed own instruments list. Just sparge steam
into bucket and measure the total enthalpy. This way it is easy to
calibrate the main calorimetry that was used, I.e. steam temperature was
measured. That is because in Rossi's system, where water inflow rate was
constant, steam temperature correlates with the amount of steam produced
(I.e. total enthalpy).

You see, idea with science is not to do excess work but to find the
simplest solution. The more simple measurements are used the more accurate
are results. Main idea with scientific experiment is to eliminate all
possible unknown and uninteresting variables.

 —Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

 Mary, your requirement for blank test run is unreasonable, but you are
 misunderstanding the reason why blank tests are used in science. Blank runs
 are used when we are measuring effects that may consist on multiple unknown
 variables and with controls we try to eliminate those variables that we are
 not interested.


Please don't be pedantic.  By a blank run, I obviously meant a blank run
with accompanying complete calibration of the measurement system using a
precisely metered electrical heater as a source.  This is standard practice
in calorimetry and you know that very well.  If it matters, I've done
extensive calorimetry and helped to design calorimeters including one of
the type used by Storms.

Usually science is messy thing when we are observing something new and
 unexplored. Effects are subtle and they are hard to differentiate from
 background noise and correlating effects such as placebo and other biased
 errors. Therefore it is required to ensure with (blind) controls, that what
 is actually measured is the effect what we are interested on.


Obviously, you misinterpreted the purpose and intent of my proposal.  A
blank and a calibration can be conveniently run together.  That eliminates
thermocouple placement, wet steam and virtually every other imaginable
source of error that could be proposed except rank fraud...  and you want
to leave it out?  !!!  --[editorial and random exclamatory as well as
possibly non-complimentary remark self censored out]

In this case, however we are measuring very clear effect that is total
 enthalpy that is measured with accuracy of one megajoule. This effect
 consist only two variables that are energy input and anomalous excess heat.
 Because we know or we can assume that input energy source is from electric
 band heater that works with efficiency of 95% or more. Therefore we can
 just assume that electric band heater works with 100% efficiency to be on
 safe side.  And we can then subtract energy input from total enthalpy to
 get the anomalous excess heat.


Except that there are constant and innumerable arguments, many of them
quite credible, about how the enthalpy is measured!  You can't ignore that
but you seem to want to!  And I am telling you exactly how to eliminate all
that argument.

Of course running eight hour control test would be informative, because it
 would give us valuable information about the efficiency of band heaters.
 However, we are not interested of measuring the efficiency of band heaters,
 but we can just assume it to be 100%. Therefore control experiment is not
 required.


Blech!  (sorry, could not help it)


 It is 1000 times more useful to run one 16 hour real test than to run one
 real 8 hour test and one 8 hour blank run. If you really hard think this
 you find this to be even more than 1000 times useful.


No!


 Accurate calorimetry is extremely simple and own instruments that are
 required to be brought are thermometer, stopwatch and a water bucket. All
 of them were on Rossi's allowed own instruments list. Just sparge steam
 into bucket and measure the total enthalpy. This way it is easy to
 calibrate the main calorimetry that was used, I.e. steam temperature was
 measured. That is because in Rossi's system, where water inflow rate was
 constant, steam temperature correlates with the amount of steam produced
 (I.e. total enthalpy).


Gee, funny.  Rossi never seemed to sparge the steam.  I wonder why.  I
agree that would be another method.  I like mine the best.  It would
squelch most if not all arguments about measurement methods.  It's useful
even if you sparge steam.


 You see, idea with science is not to do excess work but to find the
 simplest solution. The more simple measurements are used the more accurate
 are results. Main idea with scientific experiment is to eliminate all
 possible unknown and uninteresting variables.


At the risk of being impolite, that's nonsense.  Again, at the risk of
being impolite, are you lazy?  Suggesting Rossi is?   I can't imagine why
sparing work has the slightest importance in the task of proving that the
most potentially important discovery in a hundred years is valuable and not
the product of mismeasurement or worse.  That's also the reason I find
making short runs unconscionable when long ones would be far more
probative.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread Joe Catania

Rossi has already exposed it by injecting the high frequencies. Any power 
meter used to check this would likely be subject to the same inaccuracy. I 
suggest a simple frquency meter with a lead touched to the dpf.
- Original Message - 
From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011/11/10 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com:
requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you 
one
thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or 
whoever

runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters!

I think too that the falsification of input energy measurements is
most plausible way to do the cheat. However this cheat has a hole,
because anyone of the guests could just plug a power meter to their
iPad and then make a quick check of the calibration of ammeters.

These kind of fakes that are based on input electricity, I think, are
too easy to expose.

   –Jouni

Ps. it was possible to check for guest also every else variable that
was measurable. Including gamma radiation.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread David Roberson



The more I consider Horace’s model of a scam ECAT device, the more I warm up to 
the idea.  We are all aware of the fact that any excess energy produced by the 
core modules will propagate toward the water coolant and result in higher 
temperature and increased output power.
If there is no excess energy generated as Horace’s model is simulating, then we 
will see a reasonably clear indication to that effect.  The main issue that he 
and we face is to ensure that the heat losses and actual output power 
calculations are accurate.  This is where I think we need to concentrate our 
efforts to guarantee that a true picture arises.
I concluded that the output power delivered to the heat exchanger is somewhat 
lower than was originally assumed by calculations of the thermocouple readings. 
 Mats Lewan’s figures suggested that there was a discrepancy to resolve.  He 
assumed total vaporization of the .9 grams/second water output flow to 
calculate that approximately 2 kW of power was delivered.  This of course would 
be the maximum possible and it could be lower depending upon the quality of the 
steam released.  He also used the thermocouple readings to arrive at a figure 
of approximately 3 kW of power.  Something must be in error for these two 
techniques to differ by this amount.
The power delivered to the heat exchanger, using my assumptions at that point 
in time, was only 692 watts.  I am not sure that the low power calculation will 
hold up under very careful analysis, but it is a good start.  I predict that 
the true power output was between my estimate of 692 watts and the 2 kW 
calculation of Mats.
For Horace’s simulation to be accurate, he needs to include the power escaping 
from the other two mechanisms as well.  There is apparently water leakage from 
the gasket material amounting to . grams/second which steals heat away with 
it.  If this flow is assumed to be water and no vapor then approximately 215.9 
watts leaves the system via this path.
The last escape source for heat generated by the LENR process is through the 
insulated casing of the ECAT.  We are in serious need of assistance if we are 
to get a good handle upon this factor.  I casually chose a leakage power of 500 
watts for this process due to my ignorance of this form of heat loss.  It is my 
hope that someone with more experience and knowledge of radiation, conduction 
and convection would help to arrive at a reasonable estimate.
The total of these three sources of heat loss from the system equals 692 + 
215.9 + 500 = 1408 (rounded) watts.  If Horace can show that it is possible for 
stored energy to supply output power that fulfills all of these losses 
throughout the entire period of operation of the ECAT test, then I would be 
very interested in seeing his results.  He can accurately calculate the energy 
stored within the core by analyzing the input power curve.  The stored energy 
is merely the total input energy throughout the process less energy that 
escapes through heat loss.
Of course, Horace is aware that the power output must follow some form of 
exponential decay where it is substantially higher at the beginning of the self 
sustaining operation and finally ends at the 1408 watt level.  And at the end 
of the operation, an explanation for the deactivate delay period preceding the 
fast slope of temperature at T2 needs to exist.  Finally, the actual fast slope 
after that delay has to have an explanation that makes logical sense.
I request that Horace includes the factors which I have outlined above within 
his simulation.  He should be able to demonstrate that stored energy is not 
capable of matching the real life measurements if the ECAT works as advertised. 
 This is not an easy task, so Horace needs encouragement.  He has convinced me 
that his intentions are pure and that he wants to know the truth without a 
hidden agenda.
Dave

RE: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread Higgins Bob-CBH003

I generously considered that the insulation value was R6 in my analysis (an 
input in the spreadsheet), but much of that insulation may have been lost when 
the water leaked into the insulation.  If you presume R6, and calculate the 
outside area of the eCat, the calculation of the heat loss is simple but it 
must be calculated as a function of temp difference between T2 inside the 
reactor and ambient temperature and thus is not constant (easy in the 
spreadsheet).  Wet insulation being less than R6 would cause the convection 
losses to be underestimated.  Mat Lewan put his hand on the top foil over the 
insulation and said that he thought it was about 60C.  That information might 
be useful to back onto a better guess at insulation value, but it will not be 
as simple as presuming R6 to get a rough order of magnitude.

 

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] 



The last escape source for heat generated by the LENR process is through the 
insulated casing of the ECAT.  We are in serious need of assistance if we are 
to get a good handle upon this factor.  I casually chose a leakage power of 500 
watts for this process due to my ignorance of this form of heat loss.  It is my 
hope that someone with more experience and knowledge of radiation, conduction 
and convection would help to arrive at a reasonable estimate.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/11/10 Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com:
 Mats Lewan put his hand on the top foil over
 the insulation and said that he thought it was about 60C.  That information
 might be useful to back onto a better guess at insulation value, but it will
 not be as simple as presuming R6 to get a rough order of magnitude.


We can calculate that the heat loss was around 400-700 watts for 5 to
7 hours. In addition to that, heating brick E-Cat to 100 °C would
consume ca. 20 MJ energy. Heat loss would consume 7-17 MJ energy. That
means that initial heating and heat loss together eliminated 27-37 MJ
energy that never did not even get to the heat exchanger, to produce
change in ΔT. Electrical input energy that was 32MJ ± 15 MJ
(frequencies may cause up to 50 % error in measurements)

Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything. Because
it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as
heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected
into reactor.

For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing. And to
speculate, Horace is too much depended on Krivit's opinions which are
based as he has said, he was experienced very unconvincing personal
»demonstration» that lasted for 25 min in June.

   –Jouni

PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all
demonstrations have been too short, including these private
demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa. This is very
annoying fact, that it is telling, that all five fat cat
demonstrations follow the same pattern. That never exceeded eight hour
operation.

However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has
never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all
the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. Therefore bad
calorimetry is not likely source for the cheat, because that cheat
would depend on incompetent observers.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything.


I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum.



Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as 
heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into 
reactor.
I was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, 
saying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that 
it might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that 
might have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been 
dry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the 
vessel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate 
that explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was 
replaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, 
as Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that.


There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may 
reduce the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any 
weakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that 
the entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the 
parable here:


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53437.html

ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you?

SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry,
and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet.

ME: Okay, but it is way up there.

SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot
error! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it
could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be
on the ground.

Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it 
might be zero. That is preposterous.


Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the 
one they are critiquing.




For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing.


I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or 
anyone else could  have found a viable reason to doubt these things they 
would have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff.



PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all
demonstrations have been too short, including these private
demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa.


As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of 
the observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing 
they did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with 
flowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits 
of chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year 
or 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than 
chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The 
point is already proven.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

 However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has
 never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all
 the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. Therefore bad
 calorimetry is not likely source for the cheat, because that cheat
 would depend on incompetent observers.



Rossi does seem to choose his observers with some care and they tend
not to be the most careful.  And look what happened when he chose
Krivit!  And according to Krivit, NASA and one other big company sent
representatives in September and the device did not work those days.
 That could be true or it could be simply be convenient.  Maybe Rossi
won't run his machine in front of people who ask the right questions,
and are equipped and determined to test it properly.

I've always been surprised at the softball questions asked to Rossi
during post demo press interviews, for example in the October 28 run.
Nobody asked him why they couldn't see instrument readings, and about
the other issues I mention below.  Rossi's guests have been too
polite!  Jed says they asked but Rossi didn't answer.  Some people may
have asked Rossi difficult questions but not in any published
interview or demo that I've seen.  When Rossi is asked tough stuff on
his blog, he either refuses to publish it or he gives a tangential and
uninformative response, usually that it's secret.

The main problem with the calorimetry, in my estimation, is the lack
of blank runs.  Because an electrical heater is part of the system, it
would extremely easy, almost trivial to do.  A blank run, in one
swoop, would remove all the issues and concerns about losses,
thermocouple placements, incomplete vaporization of water to steam,
and many others.  It is so obvious a requirement, it's sort of telling
that it has not been done.  Yes it doubles the run time of the
experiment.  But so what?  If Rossi had done things right once, he
wouldn't have to do any additional tests in public.

Jed maintains that HVAC and boiler engineers don't run blanks but
those people don't have to prove that a new, almost incredibly
powerful technology really exists!

The other tell is, as you and NASA's scientist note, the short run.
It boggles the imagination that a device supposedly designed to run
six months without refueling was stopped after 4 or even 8 hours for
some purported convenience.  It makes absolutely no sense.  Most
people would be willing to baby sit an E-cat for days or weeks if
necessary in shifts.  The excuses just don't wash.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

 It is
 irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when
 you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.

I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that.  The
only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules
out hidden methods to power the device.

But if Rossi made a much longer than what you believe to be strictly
necessary (with proper controls and continuous total input power
metering including the RF device) it would help a lot.  In that, I
agree with NASA's scientist.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

 However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has
  never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all
  the necessary calibrations with their own instruments.


I do not know who wrote that, but it is incorrect. Rossi does not usually
let people use their own instruments. He has on some occasions.



 Jed maintains that HVAC and boiler engineers don't run blanks but
 those people don't have to prove that a new, almost incredibly
 powerful technology really exists!


Does anyone seriously doubt that if Fioravanti is telling the truth, there
can be any doubt the 1 MW reactor is real? Are you seriously suggesting
that a measurement using standard industrial techniques, performed by an
expert, showing 66 kWh input and 2,635 kWh might be in error?!? You can't
be serous. If that is the last remaining argument you have against cold
fusion, you have jumped the shark.

That measurement is *far more* reliable and the results more certain than
any laboratory technique. Ten-thousand blank experiments followed by ten
thousand laboratory scale tests would not hold a candle to it. To say you
need a blank in an industrial measurement on this scale is absurd.

This is a lot like suggesting that on July 16,1945 they should have fired
off a blank nuclear bomb with a copper core instead of plutonium, and since
they did not do that, we cannot be sure the plutonium bomb really worked.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread Andrea Selva

-- Forwarded message --
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Date: 2011/11/10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on
some occasions.
- Jed

He doesn't even want people to bring their own. Jed, does this ring you any
bell ?

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread Robert Leguillon

/snip/
 Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might 
be zero. That is preposterous.
/snip/
Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and 
it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), we 
have no idea what the flow rate actually was. 
As for the internal volume of water, Rossi was quoted as saying 20 liters, and 
some approximations have exceeded 30 liters. Using the measurements at the 
secondary, we may be able to deduce how much time it took to fill, 
back-calcuate the flow rate, and then use the September test to approximate how 
much the pump output slowed in the presence of the increased pressure. To 
further complcate things, if the assumpitions of a check valve are correct, the 
heat at the secondary does not demonstrated overflow, but merely that some 
steam generation has produced enough pressure to compress the check-valve 
spring, and the heat exchanger is seeing heat for the first time (this could 
happen with a half-full E-Cat). In short, we cannot make any reasonable 
assumptions of the input flow rate. The ONLY meaurements were those taken at 
the drain, and they certainly contradict Rossi's proclaimed flow rate.
All of this was discussed ad nauseum, and in frustration, YOU claimed that the 
input flow rate didn't matter at all, and that even if the flow rate is zero, 
there's still evidence of anomalous heat.
Please don't ascribe your own silly assertions of zero flow rates to other 
people.


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

Jouni Valkonen wrote:
 Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
 against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything.

I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum.


 Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such 
 as heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into 
 reactor.
I was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, 
saying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that 
it might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that 
might have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been 
dry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the 
vessel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate 
that explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was 
replaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, 
as Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that.

There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may 
reduce the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any 
weakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that 
the entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the 
parable here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53437.html

ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you?

SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry,
and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet.

ME: Okay, but it is way up there.

SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot
error! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it
could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be
on the ground.

Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it 
might be zero. That is preposterous.

Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the 
one they are critiquing.


 For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing.

I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or 
anyone else could  have found a viable reason to doubt these things they 
would have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff.

 PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all
 demonstrations have been too short, including these private
 demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa.

As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of 
the observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing 
they did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with 
flowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits 
of chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year 
or 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than 
chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The 
point is already proven.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


Mary Yugo wrote:


It is
irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when
you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.


I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that.  The
only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules
out hidden methods to power the device.


Hidden methods are an entirely different issue. Please do not confuse 
the two. I am saying that given the mass of the device and the size of 
the core, a 4-hour run is long enough to rule out chemistry. Obviously, 
it does not rule out chemistry if someone finds a hidden tube of 
gasoline leading into the device, or hidden wires, or something like 
that. Obviously I mean it rules out a chemical source of fuel inside the 
reactor core.


I think you understood that is what I meant. Please do not be 
argumentative. Please do not use straw man arguments.


I am confident there are no hidden wires or tubes going into the 
reactor. If you are not confident of that, fair enough, but please do 
not bring up that issue when we are talking about sources of energy 
isolated inside the reactor.


If you do think an isolated source of chemical fuel in the reactor 
vessel might explain this, please list what sort of chemical device you 
have in mind. How big is it? How much fuel, and how is that fuel 
reacted? Please do say there was something else hidden in the vessel 
other than the cell, and this other object magically defies Archimedes' law.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread David Roberson


Jed, are you sure that Horace assumes that there is no water flowing through 
the ECAT?  That would be totally unbelievable.  Maybe I was assuming that he 
was seeking the truth, but if he is neglecting such important issues, then I 
have been mistaken.

Horace, you need to defend against these allegations if you are to generate 
anything that can be believed.  What use would it be to waste your time 
simulating something that is so far away from reality that everyone can 
immediately toss the conclusions out?

I was making suggestions of some of the issues that will need to be considered 
to satisfy my curiosity.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:53 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


Jouni Valkonen wrote:
 Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly
 against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything.
I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum.

 Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as 
eat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into 
eactor.
 was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, 
aying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that 
t might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that 
ight have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been 
ry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the 
essel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate 
hat explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was 
eplaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, 
s Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that.
There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may 
educe the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any 
eakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that 
he entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the 
arable here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53437.html
ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you?
SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry,
nd I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet.
ME: Okay, but it is way up there.
SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot
rror! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it
ould be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be
n the ground.
Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it 
ight be zero. That is preposterous.
Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the 
ne they are critiquing.

 For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing.
I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or 
nyone else could  have found a viable reason to doubt these things they 
ould have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff.
 PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all
 demonstrations have been too short, including these private
 demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa.
As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of 
he observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing 
hey did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with 
lowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits 
f chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year 
r 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than 
hemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The 
oint is already proven.
- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


Andrea Selva wrote:

Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on 
some occasions.

- Jed

He doesn't even want people to bring their own. Jed, does this ring 
you any bell ?


He would not let me bring instruments, which is why I did not go. 
However, I have talked to people who were allowed to use their own 
instruments. In same cases the thing worked. In other cases it failed. 
In all cases, Rossi's instruments and the observers' instruments have 
agreed.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread David Roberson


Wait a moment before making this statement.  I recall Mats Lewan bringing his 
amp meter to the test.  Am I mistaken?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 4:13 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


-- Forwarded message --
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Date: 2011/11/10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com


Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on some 
occasions.
- Jed

He doesn't even want people to bring their own. Jed, does this ring you any 
bell ?

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-11-10 04:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Mary Yugo wrote:


It is
irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can 
produce when

you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven.


I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that.  The
only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules
out hidden methods to power the device.


Hidden methods are an entirely different issue. Please do not confuse 
the two. I am saying that given the mass of the device and the size of 
the core, a 4-hour run is long enough to rule out chemistry. 
Obviously, it does not rule out chemistry if someone finds a hidden 
tube of gasoline leading into the device, or hidden wires,


What hidden?  The thing was connected to a live monster-size genset 
through the whole test.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


David Roberson wrote:

Jed, are you sure that Horace assumes that there is no water flowing 
through the ECAT?  That would be totally unbelievable.


I believe he said that previously. Actually I think he said something 
like we do not know what the flow rate is so it might be zero.


Ask him.

While you are at it, ask Robert Leguillon what he meant by saying we 
have no idea what the flow rate actually was. Does no idea mean there 
could be no flow at all? See the thread I just started.


What I am saying here is that if you assert the that 60 L was not added, 
okay, fair enough. Maybe you are right. Yeah, it sure would have helped 
if Rossi had used a proper flowmeter. But if that is what you say, how 
much water do you think _was_ added? What is the minimum? 30 L? 10 L? 
You have to pick some reasonable number. You can't say zero. If it was 
10 L (which is unreasonable, in my opinion), how does that impact your 
stored energy hypothesis?


Jouni Valkonen has it completely right when he says that Heffner is 
ignoring all factors that work against his hypothesis, such as heat 
losses from the reactor, and the energy needed to bring the tap water up 
to boiling temperatures. He is also ignoring observations such as the 
person who was burned by the reactor several hours into the 
self-sustaining event. He is carefully slicing and dicing the evidence, 
looking for a few stray facts that -- taken in isolation -- might be 
seen as lending support to his hypothesis. Actually, they are more 
easily explained by other means.


This is not how to do science.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


 Does anyone seriously doubt that if Fioravanti is telling the truth, there
 can be any doubt the 1 MW reactor is real? Are you seriously suggesting
 that a measurement using standard industrial techniques, performed by an
 expert, showing 66 kWh input and 2,635 kWh might be in error?!? You can't
 be serous. If that is the last remaining argument you have against cold
 fusion, you have jumped the shark.


I like that expression jumping the shark.  Does it mean the same as
screwing the pooch?  Whether or not Fioravanti is telling the truth is
certainly the first important issue.  I suspect he may work for Rossi and
there is no other client.  Anyway, I wasn't talking about the megawatt
October 28 test because it all depends on what that guy reported.  Nobody
else saw data being taken so the entire test is worthless for evaluation of
the reality of Rossi's claim.   And, as you said yourself, a single
independent and properly conducted test with a small device even at or
below a one kilowatt level would be easier to evaluate and better than a
*shudder* megawatt one.

I was writing about October 6 and previous tests that used evaporation of
water and inadequate measurement of steam quality.   In the October 6 test,
people complained about thermocouple placement on the output heat exchanger
and about other things.  I know computer simulations were made but would it
not have been so much better to have a blank calibration run?  That would
show exactly how well the output power was being measured, it would provide
the time constant of the system, and it would allow accounting for all
losses.  Why guess at those critical factors when you can simply take a few
hours more and measure them accurately?

The same reasoning applies to all the runs which used evaporation of
steam.  No need to argue about how much water flowed through the system or
about the quality of the steam.  Again, measuring the performance of the
output measurement system would account for any measurement errors from
virtually any cause.  It's so obvious a thing to do considering all the
controversies about output power measurement that it is astounding that
this was done immediately after it was first brought up and suggested.

Finally, none of what I write is, in any way shape or form, an argument
against cold fusion.  I have always refused to give an opinion about that
issue as a whole because I simply don't know.  I do know quite a bit about
Rossi's claims and how they have been tested and to me it stinks -- badly.
All of it.  And that has nothing to with the claim that it's some form of
cold fusion or LENR.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

I think you understood that is what I meant. Please do not be
 argumentative. Please do not use straw man arguments.

 I am confident there are no hidden wires or tubes going into the reactor.
 If you are not confident of that, fair enough, but please do not bring up
 that issue when we are talking about sources of energy isolated inside the
 reactor.


I was trying to make the argument more compact, not confuse the two
issues.  And it's not a straw man argument.  I don't think that you can
necessarily think of and rule out all the possible ways Rossi can cheat.
That's why an independent test is needed in the first place.



 If you do think an isolated source of chemical fuel in the reactor vessel
 might explain this, please list what sort of chemical device you have in
 mind. How big is it? How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do
 say there was something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and
 this other object magically defies Archimedes' law.


Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am can
try to put together an exhaustive list.  I'd include, in addition to
various sets of chemicals, issues of things that change state at moderate
temperatures, adsorb to surfaces, and probably many things I have not
thought of yet.   And I maintain that the interior volume available for
cheating is unknown because nobody has recorded it.  What was that finned
thing inside the device?  You're sure it's only a heat exchanger with
active core modules in it?  And you know that how?

In any scam, it's the part you don't get that gets you.  I suspect Rossi
may be cheating but you're right -- I can't name the method or methods.
They may be different and multiple each and every time.  Similarly I don't
know how famous magicians do their illusions.  But if you let me get
independent testing of their props and proper viewing and inspection of the
perfomance, I bet we can find out.  If what we see is not an illusion, we
can find that out too, with proper independent testing.  Same with Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was
 something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other
 object magically defies Archimedes' law.


 Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am
 can try to put together an exhaustive list.


You do not need an exhaustive list. The problem is much simpler than
that. All you need is the extreme. You find out what chemical produces the
most energy per unit of volume, and you figure out how much of that will
fit inside the reactor core. The answer is rocket fuel with an oxidizer.
The thing is underwater so it cannot be fed with air. We know the answer is
rocket fuel because if there was any chemical with higher energy density,
they would use that for rocket fuel instead of what they do use.

It is easy to determine that this cell cannot hold enough rocket fuel plus
the equipment you need to ignite it and control it.

Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or
gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only
make a bomb. In real life, you would have to use something less energy
dense, producing much less heat. In other words, rocket fuel is the
theoretical maximum, and any real chemical would be much worse. Since
rocket fuel would not work, neither would anything else.



   I'd include, in addition to various sets of chemicals, issues of things
 that change state at moderate temperatures, adsorb to surfaces, and
 probably many things I have not thought of yet.


All irrelevant. The only question is, how much heat can you generate with a
chemical device of this size? Answer: Nowhere near enough.



   And I maintain that the interior volume available for cheating is
 unknown because nobody has recorded it.


They did record it, by Archimedes' method. Do you think that has stopped
working after 2200 years?



   What was that finned thing inside the device?  You're sure it's only a
 heat exchanger with active core modules in it?  And you know that how?


That's the cell, but who cares what that is? For the purposes of this
analysis, it does not make the slightest difference what that is. You can
estimate the volume of it by displacement, and you can see it is not big
enough. There is no electric power or fuel being being fed into it, and it
cannot hold enough chemical fuel. That's all you need to know.



 In any scam, it's the part you don't get that gets you.


Any scam must obey the laws of physics.


  I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you're right -- I can't name the
 method or methods.


If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that
you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That
would be form or religion, or perhaps literature.

All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . .
 means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump
of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it
does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know
anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in
the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?



   They may be different and multiple each and every time.


Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham's razor. Especially, stop
multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
in principle. This is -- literally -- like debating how many angels can
dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you
have proposed NOTHING.


  Similarly I don't know how famous magicians do their illusions.


I do know. You can look it up in Wikipedia. When you look inside the
stage apparatus, the methods are immediately obvious. Not one is
sophisticated or mysterious. Some of them have been use for hundreds of
years; some go back thousands of years. If this the only proof you can come
up with -- that you personally do not know how stage magicians do their
illusions -- you have disproved your own point. Anyone who makes a casual
study of stage magic will know that the methods are dead simple and cannot
be used to hide a wire in Rossi's reactor, once you open it up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread Robert Leguillon

Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor. A 
fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear power 
stations would use something else. And since we can't fit all of the necessary 
safety controls in such a small space, the only remaining explanation is 
nickel-hydrogen fusion.
Compare to the rocket-fuel analysis below. Discuss.

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

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was
 something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other
 object magically defies Archimedes' law.


 Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am
 can try to put together an exhaustive list.


You do not need an exhaustive list. The problem is much simpler than
that. All you need is the extreme. You find out what chemical produces the
most energy per unit of volume, and you figure out how much of that will
fit inside the reactor core. The answer is rocket fuel with an oxidizer.
The thing is underwater so it cannot be fed with air. We know the answer is
rocket fuel because if there was any chemical with higher energy density,
they would use that for rocket fuel instead of what they do use.

It is easy to determine that this cell cannot hold enough rocket fuel plus
the equipment you need to ignite it and control it.

Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or
gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only
make a bomb. In real life, you would have to use something less energy
dense, producing much less heat. In other words, rocket fuel is the
theoretical maximum, and any real chemical would be much worse. Since
rocket fuel would not work, neither would anything else.



   I'd include, in addition to various sets of chemicals, issues of things
 that change state at moderate temperatures, adsorb to surfaces, and
 probably many things I have not thought of yet.


All irrelevant. The only question is, how much heat can you generate with a
chemical device of this size? Answer: Nowhere near enough.



   And I maintain that the interior volume available for cheating is
 unknown because nobody has recorded it.


They did record it, by Archimedes' method. Do you think that has stopped
working after 2200 years?



   What was that finned thing inside the device?  You're sure it's only a
 heat exchanger with active core modules in it?  And you know that how?


That's the cell, but who cares what that is? For the purposes of this
analysis, it does not make the slightest difference what that is. You can
estimate the volume of it by displacement, and you can see it is not big
enough. There is no electric power or fuel being being fed into it, and it
cannot hold enough chemical fuel. That's all you need to know.



 In any scam, it's the part you don't get that gets you.


Any scam must obey the laws of physics.


  I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you're right -- I can't name the
 method or methods.


If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that
you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That
would be form or religion, or perhaps literature.

All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . .
 means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump
of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it
does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know
anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in
the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?



   They may be different and multiple each and every time.


Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham's razor. Especially, stop
multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
in principle. This is -- literally -- like debating how many angels can
dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you
have proposed NOTHING.


  Similarly I don't know how famous magicians do their illusions.


I do know. You can look it up in Wikipedia. When you look inside the
stage apparatus, the methods are immediately obvious. Not one is
sophisticated or mysterious. Some of them have been use for hundreds of
years; some go back thousands of years. If this the only proof you can come
up with -- that you personally do not know how stage magicians do their
illusions -- you have disproved your own point. Anyone who makes a casual
study of stage magic will know that the methods are dead simple and cannot
be used to hide a wire in Rossi's reactor, once you open it up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-10 Thread Robert Leguillon

I apologize. I did not institute my five-minute sarcasm filter. 

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

Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor. A 
fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear power 
stations would use something else. And since we can't fit all of the necessary 
safety controls in such a small space, the only remaining explanation is 
nickel-hydrogen fusion.
Compare to the rocket-fuel analysis below. Discuss.

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

Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:

How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was
 something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other
 object magically defies Archimedes' law.


 Maybe someone else who's more of a chemist and electrochemist than I am
 can try to put together an exhaustive list.


You do not need an exhaustive list. The problem is much simpler than
that. All you need is the extreme. You find out what chemical produces the
most energy per unit of volume, and you figure out how much of that will
fit inside the reactor core. The answer is rocket fuel with an oxidizer.
The thing is underwater so it cannot be fed with air. We know the answer is
rocket fuel because if there was any chemical with higher energy density,
they would use that for rocket fuel instead of what they do use.

It is easy to determine that this cell cannot hold enough rocket fuel plus
the equipment you need to ignite it and control it.

Of course there is not practical way to put rocket fuel in this reactor. Or
gasoline, butane, or any other high energy density chemical. You would only
make a bomb. In real life, you would have to use something less energy
dense, producing much less heat. In other words, rocket fuel is the
theoretical maximum, and any real chemical would be much worse. Since
rocket fuel would not work, neither would anything else.



   I'd include, in addition to various sets of chemicals, issues of things
 that change state at moderate temperatures, adsorb to surfaces, and
 probably many things I have not thought of yet.


All irrelevant. The only question is, how much heat can you generate with a
chemical device of this size? Answer: Nowhere near enough.



   And I maintain that the interior volume available for cheating is
 unknown because nobody has recorded it.


They did record it, by Archimedes' method. Do you think that has stopped
working after 2200 years?



   What was that finned thing inside the device?  You're sure it's only a
 heat exchanger with active core modules in it?  And you know that how?


That's the cell, but who cares what that is? For the purposes of this
analysis, it does not make the slightest difference what that is. You can
estimate the volume of it by displacement, and you can see it is not big
enough. There is no electric power or fuel being being fed into it, and it
cannot hold enough chemical fuel. That's all you need to know.



 In any scam, it's the part you don't get that gets you.


Any scam must obey the laws of physics.


  I suspect Rossi may be cheating but you're right -- I can't name the
 method or methods.


If you cannot name it, then no one can test it or falsify it. A thing that
you cannot name or specify cannot be part of a scientific debate. That
would be form or religion, or perhaps literature.

All propositions and assertions in a scientific debate must be subject to
testing and must be falsifiable, at least in principle. Asserting that
somewhere, someone might somehow know how to do this by stage magic . . .
 means nothing. That is like saying there is an invisible unicorn or a lump
of concrete in the reactor but no one can see, detect, or weigh, and it
does not displace any water. If there is no way you or any of us can know
anything at all about this method that you imagine might exist somewhere in
the universe, how can you expect us to evaluate it?



   They may be different and multiple each and every time.


Stop multiplying entities. You violate Ockham's razor. Especially, stop
multiplying invisible entities that cannot be detected by any means, even
in principle. This is -- literally -- like debating how many angels can
dance on the head of pin. Until you specify a method of stage magic you
have proposed NOTHING.


  Similarly I don't know how famous magicians do their illusions.


I do know. You can look it up in Wikipedia. When you look inside the
stage apparatus, the methods are immediately obvious. Not one is
sophisticated or mysterious. Some of them have been use for hundreds of
years; some go back thousands of years. If this the only proof you can come
up with -- that you personally do not know how stage magicians do their
illusions -- you have disproved your own point. Anyone who makes a casual
study of stage magic will know that the methods are dead simple and cannot
be used to hide a wire in Rossi's reactor,

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

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

Statement only slightly more ridiculous:
 The most energetic thing that they could put inside is a fission reactor.
 A fission reactor produces the most energy, because if it didn't, nuclear
 power stations would use something else. And since we can't fit all of the
 necessary safety controls in such a small space, the only remaining
 explanation is nickel-hydrogen fusion.
 Compare to the rocket-fuel analysis below. Discuss.


That would exceed the limits of chemistry. That's the whole point. Not a
bit ridiculous. We know that fission is not a chemical reaction because it
produces such high energy density.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Horace Heffner



On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical  
old power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory  
of scam that requires you to prove it.


Not true.  It is not I who is making the claims.  I merely intend to  
show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided  
indicate Rossi's clamis have to be real are false.  If the data can  
be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether  
that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious  
the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better  
testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated  
device is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the  
data.  I made suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve  
the quality of the data.  I am not alone in this.  Many other people  
have suggested numerous similar things over recent months.  Rossi's  
behavior is potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR  
research and the future of billions of people. I think it is  
important to speak out about this.




If I say I doubt your theory, that is my right and you have no  
right to say Nonsense cause you have absolutely no proof of what  
you suggest is even remotely true.



I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^)  Your statement made no  
sense at all.  You wrote: ... water steam occur in the outer box as  
the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you  
suggest. The observation that ... water steam occur in the outer  
box... does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur  
in the inner box under limited control.  You made an erroneous  
inference, a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly  
underestimate my understanding of the structure of the E-cat in  
question.







As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term  
reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells?


If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you  
would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept  
that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely  
correct.  I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some  
amateur theories:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf


The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather  
whether any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of  
commercially viable nuclear energy production. These are two very  
different things.




If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi?


I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has  
ever come along.  I also think I made fairly clear in my data review  
my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been  
addressing of late:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

I think it was the best of the tests so far, but still obviously  
inconclusive.





AG

On 11/9/2011 5:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed  
E-Cat photos.


What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation  
fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to  
indicate water and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins  
drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest.


Nonsense!

That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been  
in doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the  
possibility ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed  
and limited water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the  
resulting steam emissions.  The source and destination of the  
water/steam is of course the outside box, and then the top vent.   
You assertion that you can determine whether or not this occurs  
from the photos is the nonsense.





The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top  
and not from the reactor core as you suggest.


You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did  
you not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo  
analysis?


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer  
box through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of  
which I determined by photo analysis?





This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet  
fitting on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as  
the Higgins drawings suggests)


Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the  
left front.



and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core.


This you have no way of knowing.



See attached photo.

From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a 
LENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a 
bit much.


AG


On 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical 
old power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory of 
scam that requires you to prove it.


Not true.  It is not I who is making the claims.  I merely intend to 
show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided 
indicate Rossi's clamis have to be real are false.  If the data can 
be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether 
that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious 
the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better 
testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated device 
is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the data.  I made 
suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve the quality of 
the data.  I am not alone in this.  Many other people have suggested 
numerous similar things over recent months.  Rossi's behavior is 
potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR research and the 
future of billions of people. I think it is important to speak out 
about this.




If I say I doubt your theory, that is my right and you have no right 
to say Nonsense cause you have absolutely no proof of what you 
suggest is even remotely true.



I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^)  Your statement made no 
sense at all.  You wrote: ... water steam occur in the outer box as 
the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you 
suggest. The observation that ... water steam occur in the outer 
box... does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur in 
the inner box under limited control.  You made an erroneous inference, 
a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly underestimate my 
understanding of the structure of the E-cat in question.







As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term 
reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells?


If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you 
would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept 
that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely 
correct.  I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some 
amateur theories:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf


The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather whether 
any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of commercially 
viable nuclear energy production. These are two very different things.




If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi?


I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has 
ever come along.  I also think I made fairly clear in my data review 
my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been 
addressing of late:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

I think it was the best of the tests so far, but still obviously 
inconclusive.





AG

On 11/9/2011 5:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed 
E-Cat photos.


What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation 
fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate 
water and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing 
suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest.


Nonsense!

That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been 
in doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the 
possibility ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed 
and limited water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the 
resulting steam emissions.  The source and destination of the 
water/steam is of course the outside box, and then the top vent.  
You assertion that you can determine whether or not this occurs from 
the photos is the nonsense.





The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and 
not from the reactor core as you suggest.


You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did you 
not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo analysis?


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer 
box through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of 
which I determined by photo analysis?





This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet 
fitting on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the 
Higgins drawings suggests)


Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the 
left front.



and there is no water inside

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat
aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:
 I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a LENR
 denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a bit much.

Personally, I keep an open mind regarding possible hoaxing; but, one
has to ask oneself, To what end?  Rossi is not going to make
millions off this fraud before he is found out.  And even if he did,
what would be his exit strategy?  There's not many places to hide in
the world today.  Certainly not with that mug.  Reminds me of Mr.
Burns.

T
attachment: Burns.jpg

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread David Roberson


AG, I think that  Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a scheme to 
prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results.  That is OK as Rossi has done 
everything within his ability to confuse the data and leave himself open to 
serious doubt.  I suspect that it is not a coincidence where the output power 
thermocouple was located.  If Rossi had allowed us to have accurate output 
data, I could have reverse engineered his ECAT quite well.  There are others 
who would wish to duplicate his device and produce them, but that is not my 
intent.  As an example, I am confident that there exists a well defined 
function of vapor output power versus ECAT temperature reading T2.  With this 
information, it would be simple to calculate the exact power output at every 
point in time and thus the true COP.  Rossi must have this relationship in 
order to conduct his testing of individual modules.  Even the power up sequence 
he uses is part of his testing.  I have conducted a number of reviews of the 
data supplied during the October 6 test and can see his intent.  I suggest that 
you look over a the detailed, smooth graph of T2 versus Time using all of the 
data points.  If you do, you will see a treasure trove of data to mine.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 5:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a 
ENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a 
it much.
AG

n 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

 On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

 Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical 
 old power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory of 
 scam that requires you to prove it.

 Not true.  It is not I who is making the claims.  I merely intend to 
 show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided 
 indicate Rossi's clamis have to be real are false.  If the data can 
 be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether 
 that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious 
 the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better 
 testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated device 
 is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the data.  I made 
 suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve the quality of 
 the data.  I am not alone in this.  Many other people have suggested 
 numerous similar things over recent months.  Rossi's behavior is 
 potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR research and the 
 future of billions of people. I think it is important to speak out 
 about this.



 If I say I doubt your theory, that is my right and you have no right 
 to say Nonsense cause you have absolutely no proof of what you 
 suggest is even remotely true.


 I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^)  Your statement made no 
 sense at all.  You wrote: ... water steam occur in the outer box as 
 the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you 
 suggest. The observation that ... water steam occur in the outer 
 box... does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur in 
 the inner box under limited control.  You made an erroneous inference, 
 a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly underestimate my 
 understanding of the structure of the E-cat in question.





 As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term 
 reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells?

 If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you 
 would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept 
 that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely 
 correct.  I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some 
 amateur theories:

 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf


 The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather whether 
 any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of commercially 
 viable nuclear energy production. These are two very different things.


 If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi?

 I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has 
 ever come along.  I also think I made fairly clear in my data review 
 my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been 
 addressing of late:

 http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

 I think it was the best of the tests so far, but still obviously 
 inconclusive.



 AG

 On 11/9/2011 5:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

 On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

 I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed 
 E-Cat photos.

 What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-11-09 11:37 AM, David Roberson wrote:
AG, I think that  Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a 
scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results.  That is 
OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data 
and leave himself open to serious doubt.  I suspect that it is not a 
coincidence where the output power thermocouple was located.  If Rossi 
had allowed us to have accurate output data, I could have reverse 
engineered his ECAT quite well.


How would you determine what his secret catalyst is?  Without that 
you'll likely be down by an order of magnitude or more from his power 
levels, and your reverse engineering effort would be a bust.


Here's an analogy:  If I gave you a catalytic converter from a car to 
test, and let you measure the temperatures going in and coming out and 
the gas composition going in and coming out, but you didn't know what 
was inside, would you be able to determine that it contained platinum 
and palladium from the thermal signature?  I don't think so.  Similarly, 
I don't see how you could figure out what Rossi's catalyst is, just from 
accurate thermal data.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Jed Rothwell

Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:

How would you determine what his secret catalyst is?  Without that you'll
 likely be down by an order of magnitude or more from his power levels . . .


That is correct. Probably you would get no heat at all.



 Similarly, I don't see how you could figure out what Rossi's catalyst is,
 just from accurate thermal data.


I don't either. The nuclear signatures, on the other hand, might tell you
everything you need to know. Assuming there are any.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
 The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 50x60x35
 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when water
 levels and temperatures are simulated.


If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box (it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
inside), and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster,
then why do you cannot understand, that it is also trivial to fit
internal chemical power source to 30×30×30 cm³ black box?

Therefore your analysis is not only ridiculous it is mere wasting of
time, because it is based solely on nonsensical speculations. It would
be more productive for you to think how to fit 4-10 liters e.g.
thermite inside 30×30×30 cm³ black box.

   –Jouni

Ps. besides, your method does not explain observed gamma-radiation
near E-Cat, that was reported someone how had their own Geiger counter
in the Oct 6th demonstration.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


Dave you have made some good points and I will do as you suggest.

AG

On 11/10/2011 3:07 AM, David Roberson wrote:
AG, I think that  Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a 
scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results.  That is 
OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data 
and leave himself open to serious doubt.  I suspect that it is not a 
coincidence where the output power thermocouple was located.  If Rossi 
had allowed us to have accurate output data, I could have reverse 
engineered his ECAT quite well.  There are others who would wish to 
duplicate his device and produce them, but that is not my intent.  As 
an example, I am confident that there exists a well defined function 
of vapor output power versus ECAT temperature reading T2.  With this 
information, it would be simple to calculate the exact power output at 
every point in time and thus the true COP.  Rossi must have this 
relationship in order to conduct his testing of individual modules.  
Even the power up sequence he uses is part of his testing.  I have 
conducted a number of reviews of the data supplied during the October 
6 test and can see his intent.  I suggest that you look over a the 
detailed, smooth graph of T2 versus Time using all of the data 
points.  If you do, you will see a treasure trove of data to mine.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 5:14 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a
LENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a
bit much.

AG


On 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

  On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

  Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical
  old power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory of
  scam that requires you to prove it.

  Not true.  It is not I who is making the claims.  I merely intend to
  show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided
  indicate Rossi's clamis have to be real are false.  If the data can
  be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether
  that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious
  the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better
  testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated device
  is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the data.  I made
  suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve the quality of
  the data.  I am not alone in this.  Many other people have suggested
  numerous similar things over recent months.  Rossi's behavior is
  potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR research and the
  future of billions of people. I think it is important to speak out
  about this.



  If I say I doubt your theory, that is my right and you have no right
  to say Nonsense cause you have absolutely no proof of what you
  suggest is even remotely true.


  I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^)  Your statement made no
  sense at all.  You wrote: ... water steam occur in the outer box as
  the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you
  suggest. The observation that ... water steam occur in the outer
  box... does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur in
  the inner box under limited control.  You made an erroneous inference,
  a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly underestimate my
  understanding of the structure of the E-cat in question.





  As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term
  reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells?

  If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you
  would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept
  that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely
  correct.  I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some
  amateur theories:

  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf  
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt  
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/dfRpt
  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf  
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf


  The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather whether
  any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of commercially
  viable nuclear energy production. These are two very different things.


  If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi?

  I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has
  ever come along.  I also think I made fairly clear in my data review
  my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been
  addressing of late:

  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf  
http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Horace Heffner

First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread.  In regards  
to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer  
box I said: There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for  
frequency generator input.


That was meant to say: There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main power,  
and 2 for frequency generator input.  I think it is especially odd  
that the two frequency generator conduits, one above the interior  
box flanges, one below, are 1 1/4 inch pipe, while the conduit for  
the main power is only 1 pipe. It seems reasonable to speculate as  
to what might require, and be located inside, the large pipes.



On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The  
50x60x35
cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when  
water

levels and temperatures are simulated.





I am responding to this post only because words I did not issue have  
been put in my mouth.



If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box


Black is your wording, not mine, in relation to color.  Those  
dimensions came from Mats Lewan's report which I reference in my paper:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

I also determined from the photos that the actual dimension is closer  
to 30.3 cm.  Any reference to a black box I might have made in my  
writing was not literal, but I don't recall referring to the interior  
box as black. The color might be called rusty dirty scale deposited  
on aluminum.




(it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
inside),


If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of  
the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it  
from the front of the larger box.




and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster,


I did not at any time say that.  Those are your words, not mine.  It  
is you who repeatedly jumps to the fraud conclusion, not me.  Fraud  
or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many  
others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide  
anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to  
admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls,  
etc.  The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions  
now, regardless the outcome.  Why will he never make the tiny  
incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces  
nuclear heat?  If he does not give a damn about the rest of the  
world, only his marketing strategy, then that indeed does not speak  
highly of his morality, does it?  His bizarre behavior raises logical  
questions.  Has he no faith in himself to produce his claimed  
results?  Has his discovery gone the way of Patterson's beads?  Are  
his results now merely amplified artifacts, or insufficient to be  
commercially viable?   Is he unable to run for multiple days, much  
less multiple months as claimed?  Only Rossi himself is responsible  
for creating these doubts.


What I *would* be happy to do is show the possibility that a logical  
construction can produce the observed results.  Given the 37% extra  
output heat that I mistakenly built into my spread sheet by biasing  
the temperature, it does not take an unfeasible error in the Tout  
reading to accommodate a good match of result by simulation.  Given  
it is not even known for sure the Tout thermocouple was in direct  
contact with metal, this is not a far reach.  However, if I could  
show even a possible fraud based mechanism exists which simulates the  
results with the given inputs, that would be sufficient to  
demonstrate the calorimetry requires improving.  It should be  
sufficient to quell at least some of the ridiculous non-quantitative  
arm waving true believer arguments made here, but probably won't.


You do see the difference between calling Rossi an evil criminal  
fraudster and showing a logical mechanism exists which reproduces the  
experiment outputs given only the experiment inputs, don't you?  The  
purpose for the latter is to provide some motivation or justification  
for a customer demand for appropriate due diligence. The former would  
serve no purpose. Many people in the blogosphere have said or implied  
the E-cat is a fraud, so the former would be useless, in addition to  
being unsubstantiated arm waving.





then why do you cannot understand, that it is also trivial to fit
internal chemical power source to 30×30×30 cm³ black box?


If you had read my paper, especially the section CHARACTERISTICS OF  
THE CENTRAL MASS you would have understood.   There is a logical  
explanation for using slabs of material to retain and stabilize heat.  
Thin layers of insulation can be placed between the iron and the  
catalyst, and the catalyst and the water,

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/11/10 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
 (it was not mine
 impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
 that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
 inside),

 If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of the
 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it from the
 front of the larger box.

This cannot be right, because Rossi explicitly forbid to take any
pictures or video footage from interior that was examined using
flashlights. Therefore you cannot rely on pictures, but you must
interview those who examined the interiors of E-Cat.

   –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Jed Rothwell

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


 Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many
 others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide
 anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the
 importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc.  The lives
 of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the
 outcome.  Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to
 properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat?


That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does have a
customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired by the customer.

In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for better test
than an industrial scale professional boiler test.

I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who he
claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears to be -- a
sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then Rossi has done exactly
what he claimed he would to all long. No one can fault his business-first
approach. The fact that he does not do academic science-style tests with
proper controls and so on is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is *far
more convincing* and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC
engineers have completely different standards from physicists in academic
laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not do
controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do such things
is ridiculous.

Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial engineering,
or vice versa. The two are very different, for good reasons. What works
well in a science lab may not work in a factory. Rossi is an industrial
engineer. He makes large machines. Fioravanti  tests large machines
(assuming he is for real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods
appropriate to the lab bench top.

As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he would
pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

I might suggest that the 2 RF wires maybe multicore shielded cable. If 
it was just 2 wires, why would Rossi need 2 penetration in the outer and 
inner box? Way too many holes to seal against leaks. One cable may be 
input and the other output, which are separated into 2 cables to reduce 
cross talk in the reactor's control circuits?


Rossi does refer to his reactor as an Amplifier and every amplifier I 
know or have designed needs gain control and uses feedback. He has said 
each E-Cat module has it's own control and that the control panel was 
mounted on the outside of the container as it got too hot inside. Was 
there a control panel mounted on the off camera side of the container? 
If so does anyone have photos of the control panel?


AG


On 11/10/2011 9:18 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread.  In regards 
to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer 
box I said: There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for frequency 
generator input.


That was meant to say: There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main power, 
and 2 for frequency generator input.  I think it is especially odd 
that the two frequency generator conduits, one above the interior 
box flanges, one below, are 1 1/4 inch pipe, while the conduit for the 
main power is only 1 pipe. It seems reasonable to speculate as to 
what might require, and be located inside, the large pipes.



On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 
50x60x35

cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when water
levels and temperatures are simulated.





I am responding to this post only because words I did not issue have 
been put in my mouth.



If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box


Black is your wording, not mine, in relation to color.  Those 
dimensions came from Mats Lewan's report which I reference in my paper:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

I also determined from the photos that the actual dimension is closer 
to 30.3 cm.  Any reference to a black box I might have made in my 
writing was not literal, but I don't recall referring to the interior 
box as black. The color might be called rusty dirty scale deposited 
on aluminum.




(it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
inside),


If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of 
the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it 
from the front of the larger box.




and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster,


I did not at any time say that.  Those are your words, not mine.  It 
is you who repeatedly jumps to the fraud conclusion, not me.  Fraud or 
self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many 
others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide 
anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to 
admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, 
etc.  The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions 
now, regardless the outcome.  Why will he never make the tiny 
incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces 
nuclear heat?  If he does not give a damn about the rest of the world, 
only his marketing strategy, then that indeed does not speak highly of 
his morality, does it?  His bizarre behavior raises logical 
questions.  Has he no faith in himself to produce his claimed 
results?  Has his discovery gone the way of Patterson's beads?  Are 
his results now merely amplified artifacts, or insufficient to be 
commercially viable?   Is he unable to run for multiple days, much 
less multiple months as claimed?  Only Rossi himself is responsible 
for creating these doubts.


What I *would* be happy to do is show the possibility that a logical 
construction can produce the observed results.  Given the 37% extra 
output heat that I mistakenly built into my spread sheet by biasing 
the temperature, it does not take an unfeasible error in the Tout 
reading to accommodate a good match of result by simulation.  Given it 
is not even known for sure the Tout thermocouple was in direct contact 
with metal, this is not a far reach.  However, if I could show even a 
possible fraud based mechanism exists which simulates the results with 
the given inputs, that would be sufficient to demonstrate the 
calorimetry requires improving.  It should be sufficient to quell at 
least some of the ridiculous non-quantitative arm waving true believer 
arguments made here, but probably won't.


You do see the difference between calling Rossi an evil criminal 
fraudster and showing a logical mechanism exists which reproduces the 
experiment outputs given only the experiment inputs, don't you?  The 
purpose for the

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


Seems someone did manage to click a few photos anyway.

AG


On 11/10/2011 9:38 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

2011/11/10 Horace Heffnerhheff...@mtaonline.net:

(it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
inside),

If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of the
30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it from the
front of the larger box.


This cannot be right, because Rossi explicitly forbid to take any
pictures or video footage from interior that was examined using
flashlights. Therefore you cannot rely on pictures, but you must
interview those who examined the interiors of E-Cat.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Jeff Sutton

I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't doubt
that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this explains some
of the nonsensical things.  I also believe he is quite intelligent.
But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first
approach is that he has still something to hide.  It could be he is
missing something to do with control of the reaction,  or he has no new art
for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it.

Think if everything was normal.  Ross could arrange an independent demo(s)
in front of reputable persons.  From that he could explain what he does in
a patent application and it would be granted.  He would win the Nobel price
and untold fortune.

His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


 Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do
 many others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide
 anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the
 importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc.  The lives
 of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now, regardless the
 outcome.  Why will he never make the tiny incremental effort required to
 properly demonstrate he produces nuclear heat?


 That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does have a
 customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired by the customer.

 In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for better test
 than an industrial scale professional boiler test.

 I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who he
 claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears to be -- a
 sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then Rossi has done exactly
 what he claimed he would to all long. No one can fault his business-first
 approach. The fact that he does not do academic science-style tests with
 proper controls and so on is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is *far
 more convincing* and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC
 engineers have completely different standards from physicists in academic
 laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not do
 controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do such things
 is ridiculous.

 Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial engineering,
 or vice versa. The two are very different, for good reasons. What works
 well in a science lab may not work in a factory. Rossi is an industrial
 engineer. He makes large machines. Fioravanti  tests large machines
 (assuming he is for real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods
 appropriate to the lab bench top.

 As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he would
 pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

What if the patent theory is wrong and Piantelli or W-L is right? Would 
he then be left with no protection other than trade secrets?


I do note he is seeking non disclosed uni research help as he tries to 
get them to help him understand how his reactor really works. I don't 
envy Rossi, knowing he may have no IP protection, not really understand 
how the reaction works but wanting to make money from his multi year 
efforts. Also the latest, NO MORE TESTS, says bugger off all you who 
seek to understand what is going on, you will get NO more information to 
help you figure this out.


Rossi is between a rock and a hard place.

AG


On 11/10/2011 9:59 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote:
I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't 
doubt that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this 
explains some of the nonsensical things.  I also believe he is quite 
intelligent.
But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first 
approach is that he has still something to hide.  It could be he is 
missing something to do with control of the reaction,  or he has no 
new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it.


Think if everything was normal.  Ross could arrange 
an independent demo(s) in front of reputable persons.  From that he 
could explain what he does in a patent application and it would be 
granted.  He would win the Nobel price and untold fortune.


His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com 
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I
recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's
inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly
flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of
such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc.  The lives
of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now,
regardless the outcome.  Why will he never make the tiny
incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he
produces nuclear heat?


That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does
have a customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired
by the customer.

In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for
better test than an industrial scale professional boiler test.

I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who
he claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears
to be -- a sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then
Rossi has done exactly what he claimed he would to all long. No
one can fault his business-first approach. The fact that he does
not do academic science-style tests with proper controls and so on
is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is _far more convincing_
and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC engineers
have completely different standards from physicists in academic
laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not
do controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do
such things is ridiculous.

Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial
engineering, or vice versa. The two are very different, for good
reasons. What works well in a science lab may not work in a
factory. Rossi is an industrial engineer. He makes large
machines. Fioravanti  tests large machines (assuming he is for
real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods appropriate to
the lab bench top.

As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he
would pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Joe Catania

requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you one 
thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or whoever 
runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters!
- Original Message - 
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread.  In regards
to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer
box I said: There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for
frequency generator input.

That was meant to say: There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main power,
and 2 for frequency generator input.  I think it is especially odd
that the two frequency generator conduits, one above the interior
box flanges, one below, are 1 1/4 inch pipe, while the conduit for
the main power is only 1 pipe. It seems reasonable to speculate as
to what might require, and be located inside, the large pipes.

On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

2011/11/9 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 
50x60x35

cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except when  water
levels and temperatures are simulated.

I am responding to this post only because words I did not issue have
been put in my mouth.

If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box

Black is your wording, not mine, in relation to color.  Those
dimensions came from Mats Lewan's report which I reference in my paper:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

I also determined from the photos that the actual dimension is closer
to 30.3 cm.  Any reference to a black box I might have made in my
writing was not literal, but I don't recall referring to the interior
box as black. The color might be called rusty dirty scale deposited
on aluminum.

(it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
inside),

If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of
the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it
from the front of the larger box.

and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster,

I did not at any time say that.  Those are your words, not mine.  It
is you who repeatedly jumps to the fraud conclusion, not me.  Fraud
or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many
others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide
anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to
admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls,
etc.  The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions
now, regardless the outcome.  Why will he never make the tiny
incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces
nuclear heat?  If he does not give a damn about the rest of the
world, only his marketing strategy, then that indeed does not speak
highly of his morality, does it?  His bizarre behavior raises logical
questions.  Has he no faith in himself to produce his claimed
results?  Has his discovery gone the way of Patterson's beads?  Are
his results now merely amplified artifacts, or insufficient to be
commercially viable?   Is he unable to run for multiple days, much
less multiple months as claimed?  Only Rossi himself is responsible
for creating these doubts.

What I *would* be happy to do is show the possibility that a logical
construction can produce the observed results.  Given the 37% extra
output heat that I mistakenly built into my spread sheet by biasing
the temperature, it does not take an unfeasible error in the Tout
reading to accommodate a good match of result by simulation.  Given
it is not even known for sure the Tout thermocouple was in direct
contact with metal, this is not a far reach.  However, if I could
show even a possible fraud based mechanism exists which simulates the
results with the given inputs, that would be sufficient to
demonstrate the calorimetry requires improving.  It should be
sufficient to quell at least some of the ridiculous non-quantitative
arm waving true believer arguments made here, but probably won't.

You do see the difference between calling Rossi an evil criminal
fraudster and showing a logical mechanism exists which reproduces the
experiment outputs given only the experiment inputs, don't you?  The
purpose for the latter is to provide some motivation or justification
for a customer demand for appropriate due diligence. The former would
serve no purpose. Many people in the blogosphere have said or implied
the E-cat is a fraud, so the former would be useless, in addition to
being unsubstantiated arm waving.

then why do you cannot understand, that it is also trivial to fit
internal chemical power source to 30×30×30 cm³ black box?

If you had read my paper

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/11/10 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com:
 requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you one
 thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or whoever
 runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters!

I think too that the falsification of input energy measurements is
most plausible way to do the cheat. However this cheat has a hole,
because anyone of the guests could just plug a power meter to their
iPad and then make a quick check of the calibration of ammeters.

These kind of fakes that are based on input electricity, I think, are
too easy to expose.

–Jouni

Ps. it was possible to check for guest also every else variable that
was measurable. Including gamma radiation.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread Daniel Rocha

Ignoring the issue that the range of weak force is ~10-18m, around 1000x
smaller than a proton's radius, so it is kind of hard to make a lattice of
W bosons (one of the carriers of this force), that theory doesn't explain
where so many random radioactive are not formed. So, it is very difficult
for me to accept this theory.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com
Date: 2011/11/9
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

What if the patent theory is wrong and Piantelli or W-L is right? Would he
then be left with no protection other than trade secrets?

I do note he is seeking non disclosed uni research help as he tries to get
them to help him understand how his reactor really works. I don't envy
Rossi, knowing he may have no IP protection, not really understand how the
reaction works but wanting to make money from his multi year efforts. Also
the latest, NO MORE TESTS, says bugger off all you who seek to understand
what is going on, you will get NO more information to help you figure this
out.

Rossi is between a rock and a hard place.

AG

On 11/10/2011 9:59 AM, Jeff Sutton wrote:

 I don't doubt that Rossi has something new and fantastic, and I don't
 doubt that he is eccentric in some way as are most of us and this explains
 some of the nonsensical things.  I also believe he is quite intelligent.
 But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first
 approach is that he has still something to hide.  It could be he is
 missing something to do with control of the reaction,  or he has no new art
 for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it.

 Think if everything was normal.  Ross could arrange an independent demo(s)
 in front of reputable persons.  From that he could explain what he does in
 a patent application and it would be granted.  He would win the Nobel price
 and untold fortune.

 His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man.

 On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.commailto:
 jedrothw...@gmail.com** wrote:

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net** wrote:

Fraud or self delusion are of course possibilities I
recognize, as do many others, especially given Rossi's
inability numerous times to provide anything other than highly
flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to admit the importance of
such mundane scientific concepts as controls, etc.  The lives
of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions now,
regardless the outcome.  Why will he never make the tiny
incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he
produces nuclear heat?

That's a little unfair. Assume for a moment that Rossi really does
have a customer and that Fioravanti is a real HVAC engineer hired
by the customer.

In that case he has done everything right. You cannot ask for
better test than an industrial scale professional boiler test.

I think it comes down to a few simple questions: Is Fioravanti who
he claims to be? Is that sheet of paper he signed what it appears
to be -- a sales contract test acceptance report? If so, then
Rossi has done exactly what he claimed he would to all long. No
one can fault his business-first approach. The fact that he does
not do academic science-style tests with proper controls and so on
is irrelevant. A professional boiler test is _far more convincing_

and more relevant. As I have often pointed out, HVAC engineers
have completely different standards from physicists in academic
laboratories. Engineers do not do blank experiments. They do not
do controls. That is not part of their protocol. Asking them to do
such things is ridiculous.

Do not impose the standards of academic science on industrial
engineering, or vice versa. The two are very different, for good
reasons. What works well in a science lab may not work in a
factory. Rossi is an industrial engineer. He makes large
machines. Fioravanti  tests large machines (assuming he is for
real). It makes no sense to demand they use methods appropriate to
the lab bench top.

As I said, I do not fault his business first-approach. I wish he
would pursue business and money more aggressively on a larger scale.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-09 Thread David Roberson


You are correct about the catalyst and the actual core of the ECAT.  I was 
actually referring to the thermal environment and the behavior of the core 
under operating conditions.  This information would prove that the ECAT is 
generating excess heat for all to see as opposed to now where many question the 
data.

I suspect that the catalyst will be determined by any company that desires to 
copy it by opening a unit that they obtain by unsavory means.  It will be 
impossible for anyone to keep this from happening.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 1:33 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On 11-11-09 11:37 AM, David Roberson wrote:
 AG, I think that  Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a 
 scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results.  That is 
 OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data 
 and leave himself open to serious doubt.  I suspect that it is not a 
 coincidence where the output power thermocouple was located.  If Rossi 
 had allowed us to have accurate output data, I could have reverse 
 engineered his ECAT quite well.
How would you determine what his secret catalyst is?  Without that 
ou'll likely be down by an order of magnitude or more from his power 
evels, and your reverse engineering effort would be a bust.
Here's an analogy:  If I gave you a catalytic converter from a car to 
est, and let you measure the temperatures going in and coming out and 
he gas composition going in and coming out, but you didn't know what 
as inside, would you be able to determine that it contained platinum 
nd palladium from the thermal signature?  I don't think so.  Similarly, 
 don't see how you could figure out what Rossi's catalyst is, just from 
ccurate thermal data.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-08 Thread Berke Durak

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

 The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the
 beginning.  In the early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out
 of the E-Cat and down a drain,  without ever being collected or
 sparged.  In the 1MW demo, the steam is condensed and fed back in,
 there is no way of knowing how much water was actually vaporized.

How did they get the 3716 liters of vaporized water figure then?
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the
30x30x30 interior box.

1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside. Lewan says you can
see more than the photograph shows. There is no sign of concrete.

2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after
the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the
vessel. There is no place to put concrete.

3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was
no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors
were real and this one is fake.

Furthermore, you claim that output power is not measured accurately but
this is incorrect. This analysis shows that the temperature of the cooling
loop thermocouples was correct to within 0.1°C:

http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx

No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect and
half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is turned
on, the overall output profile is still correct, and output greatly exceeds
input. In other words, in the storage scenario, you lower the output curve
to half of the input, while power is on, and then measure the area of
stored energy, and compare it output energy during the time power is on,
and afterwards. The area of the latter greatly exceeds the former.

Storage cannot explain these results.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-08 Thread Robert Leguillon

By assuming that all of the water pumped in was evaporated. Unfortunately, it 
was fed into the steam condensers and back into the E-Cat in a closed loop. 
This us why the October 6th test was so important. It stood the chance to 
produce viable calorimetry. Unfortunately, the placement of the secondary 
thermocouples bring the results into question

Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Robert Leguillon
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:

 The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the
 beginning.  In the early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out
 of the E-Cat and down a drain,  without ever being collected or
 sparged.  In the 1MW demo, the steam is condensed and fed back in,
 there is no way of knowing how much water was actually vaporized.

How did they get the 3716 liters of vaporized water figure then?
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

As I soon (4 to 8 weeks) will hopefully be doing my own calorimeter 
measurements, Robert will you please assist my learning curve by 
pointing how the 6 Oct E-Cat thermocouple input and output heat 
exchanger measuring points were incorrect and how they should have been 
done properly so I don't make a similar mistake.


AG


On 11/9/2011 12:50 AM, Robert Leguillon wrote:

By assuming that all of the water pumped in was evaporated. Unfortunately, it 
was fed into the steam condensers and back into the E-Cat in a closed loop. 
This us why the October 6th test was so important. It stood the chance to 
produce viable calorimetry. Unfortunately, the placement of the secondary 
thermocouples bring the results into question

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-08 Thread David Roberson


Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading 
incorrectly.  Rossi has stated on several occasions that he has only one core 
working within the ECAT used for the October 6 test.  One core can only 
generate approximately 3.4 kW of power since three are needed to generate the 
rated 10 kW.  The high power output calculated during the self sustaining mode 
does not add up.  Also, Other calculations support the indication that the 
power output is due to one core.  I will explain the backup data and 
calculations for my position if it is required.

I am not inferring that there is any concrete hidden within the ECAT enclosure.

Also, I am firmly convinced that the output power will prove that LENR is 
responsible for the excess energy provided that sufficient time is allowed and 
accurate data obtained.

The driven mode is a far better mode to demonstrate the LENR character of the 
device.  That is what I would do if I were Rossi and wanted to convince people 
of the device capacity.  He would just have to run it for long enough to 
eliminate any other possibilities.

You have made an excellent point regarding the original cylindrical device.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 9:13 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:




Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the 30x30x30 
interior box. 



1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside. Lewan says you can see 
more than the photograph shows. There is no sign of concrete.



2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after the 
run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the vessel. 
There is no place to put concrete.


3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was no 
concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors were 
real and this one is fake.



Furthermore, you claim that output power is not measured accurately but this is 
incorrect. This analysis shows that the temperature of the cooling loop 
thermocouples was correct to within 0.1°C:


http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx


No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect and 
half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is turned on, 
the overall output profile is still correct, and output greatly exceeds input. 
In other words, in the storage scenario, you lower the output curve to half of 
the input, while power is on, and then measure the area of stored energy, and 
compare it output energy during the time power is on, and afterwards. The area 
of the latter greatly exceeds the former.


Storage cannot explain these results.





- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading
 incorrectly.


Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it
is in error.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 8, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of  
the 30x30x30 interior box.


1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside.


Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat?   I thought  
Defklion and Rossi had outs.


If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is  
irrelevant.


Levi has been an inside guy from the beginning has he not?  I see no  
difference between him and Rossi in regards to this issue. For that  
matter Defkalion is or will be selling similar devices, true?


What is important, obviously, is access by independent observers.


Lewan says you can see more than the photograph shows. There is no  
sign of concrete.


There was undoubtedly no sign of eagles or of diamond rings or elves  
or many other things either, or for that matter Ni or lead.  The  
phrase see more than the photograph shows can mean anything.


BTW, the final large  heat pulse before power cut-off could very well  
be due to water flowing into the 30x30x30 box through a hole.  There  
could be two major slabs, one large and long (and to the left of the  
wiring input port)  with lower thermal conductivity, and one short  
one with higher thermal conductivity material (to the right of the  
wiring input port).   The water access port would provide access of  
the water to the larger left slab.  Access of water to the smaller  
higher thermal conductivity slab would be the result of removal of  
the signal generator signal.


Just to be clear, not that it is very important or relevant, I did  
not use the term concrete to mean ordinary concrete made with sand  
and rocks.   Ordinary concrete has poor thermodynamic properties  
compared to Portland cement.  If you see me use the term concrete  
please assume it is one of my many typos.   I actually mean cement.   
Cement delays the heat pulse too long.Ceramics or fire brick  
delay the post power cut off heat pulse to a time closer to the  
observed data.





2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel  
after the run and measured the volume. There is no space  
unaccounted for in the vessel. There is no place to put concrete.




These are meaningless words.  I specified *inside* the 30x30x30 cm  
inner box.  What happens outside that box is obviously immaterial.
Why would you bring such a red herring into the discussion?




3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of.  
There was no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the  
previous reactors were real and this one is fake.




This is nonsense, and yet another red herring.   You are digging  
pretty deep to respond!  8^)   The calorimetry for those devices was  
entirely different.  They were not designed by Rossi  to demonstrate  
heat after death.  The obvious flaw in the demonstration of those  
devices is the output was never observed - it was simply sent down a  
drain.



Furthermore, you claim that output power is not measured accurately  
but this is incorrect. This analysis shows that the temperature of  
the cooling loop thermocouples was correct to within 0.1°C:




http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of% 
20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx






Take a look at this photo again:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg

There is a good possibility the thermocouple did not even touch the  
metal of the steel nut.   Why would anyone with any experience at all  
leave the mess of ragged insulation around the thermocouple?  It  
looks to me the thermocouple was probably exposed primarily to the  
air temperature under the insulation.  At any rate, any one with  
nominal experience should know to place the thermocouple down the  
rubber hose a bit to avoid thermal wicking in the metal.


No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is  
incorrect and half of the input power is being stored while the  
electric power is turned on,


What do you mean half the input power is being stored?  It is all  
being stored (except for leakage through the insulation) until heat  
shows up at the heat exchanger.
the overall output profile is still correct, and output greatly  
exceeds input. In other words, in the storage scenario, you lower  
the output curve to half of the input, while power is on, and then  
measure the area of stored energy, and compare it output energy  
during the time power is on, and afterwards. The area of the latter  
greatly exceeds the former.




All you are saying here is the output energy is larger than the input  
energy.  We can not know that without good thermocouple readings.   
This is not inferable from a measurement.  This is a rehash of old  
well trodden material.




Storage cannot explain these results.




Sure it can, if the thermocouple readings are not reliable.   Most  
importantly, simple

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-08 Thread David Roberson


It is apparent that the model is not accurate.  For one issue, the thermal 
insulation surrounding the entire heat exchanger is not modeled.  Also, if the 
results do not match the real world, then which should we believe?  It is the 
burden of the modeler to demonstrate that his model represents the actual 
process and not the other way around.

I have mentioned several reasons why the results do not match expectations.  
How do you explain the excess power being delivered according to the 
thermocouple readings when just one core is installed?  This is not probable 
and we should not be confused by assuming that one core is capable of 
generating 10 kW.  This is more of Rossi's game as usual.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:


Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are reading 
incorrectly.



Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it is 
in error.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

Jed, I have reason to believe that the output thermocouples are  
reading incorrectly.


Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show  
where it is in error.


- Jed





Why is this material not in pdf format like other material on LENR- 
CANR.org?



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

 Then I suggest you address the paper uploaded by Houkes, and show where it
 is in error.


 Why is this material not in pdf format like other material on
 LENR-CANR.org?


Because:

1. I have not got around to it.

2. I figure the authors may want to change it.

3. It was not published elsewhere so it sorta breaks the rules at
LENR-CANR.org. I do not usually upload original papers. Unlike Wikipedia
with their no original research rule, I am flexible.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


 Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat?


So they say.



 If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is
 irrelevant.


That one, as far as I know. It was tested before. It shows signs of having
been run many times, such as scale inside it.



 Levi has been an inside guy from the beginning has he not?


No, only since December 2010. He only became an insider because he saw
proof that the reaction is real. If you're going to criticize anyone who
believes Rossi and accuse him of being an insider there will be an ever
widening circle of people you consider persona non grata. It will be like a
giant game of sardines, where you lose.



  I see no difference between him and Rossi in regards to this issue. For
 that matter Defkalion is or will be selling similar devices, true?


So they say.



 What is important, obviously, is access by independent observers.


Defkalion is independent of Rossi. Quite independent -- he has broken off
relations with them. As I said, you are setting up a gigantic game of
sardines here. First Rossi is suspect because Rossi makes the claims. Then
Defkalion the suspect because they make the same claims. Now I suppose
George Miley is suspect because he saw the same thing. How long are you I
keep this up? When 100 different labs replicate this are you going to say
everyone of them is part of the conspiracy and there are no independent
observers? Anyone who agrees it is real is automatically guilty of
conspiracy and fraud.



 2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel after
 the run and measured the volume. There is no space unaccounted for in the
 vessel. There is no place to put concrete.


 These are meaningless words.  I specified *inside* the 30x30x30 cm inner
 box.  What happens outside that box is obviously immaterial.   Why would
 you bring such a red herring into the discussion?


See: displacement; Archimedes.



 3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of. There was
 no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the previous reactors
 were real and this one is fake.


 This is nonsense, and yet another red herring.   You are digging pretty
 deep to respond!  8^)   The calorimetry for those devices was entirely
 different.  They were not designed by Rossi  to demonstrate heat after
 death.


The previous reactors *did* demonstrate heat after death, on
several occasions. I do not know what you are talking about.



 No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is incorrect
 and half of the input power is being stored while the electric power is
 turned on,

 What do you mean half the input power is being stored?  It is all being
 stored (except for leakage through the insulation) until heat shows up at
 the heat exchanger.


Yes, of course. How could it? After it does reach the exchanger, output
soon catches up with input. By the time heat after death began the balance
was about even. There was no stored heat, except the heat in the remaining
hot water of course. You can see from the decay curves that this would all
emerge in about 45 min. with no input power, and it would cool very rapidly
during this time. There is no way the temperature could have remained at
boiling for four hours.



 All you are saying here is the output energy is larger than the input
 energy.  We can not know that without good thermocouple readings.


You can move the output line down to any plausible spot you like, or even
halfway down, which is preposterous and not a bit plausible. Output still
greatly exceeds input.


 This is not inferable from a measurement.  This is a rehash of old well
 trodden material.


However, it is still correct. You have not refuted it. You have not even
addressed most aspects of it, such as the fact that there is no concrete in
the previous cylindrical reactors and they also demonstrated heat after
death. For that matter input was so small compared to output, all of the
heat might as well be considered heat after death.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:15 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat?

So they say.


Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box  
in the 6 Oct E-cat demo?  Do you have a reference on this?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


 Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in
 the 6 Oct E-cat demo?  Do you have a reference on this?


No, just what they say. Take it or leave it. If you don't believe me, or
them, believe Archimedes.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-08 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

 Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in the
 6 Oct E-cat demo?  Do you have a reference on this?

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg

Source:

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi

T

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:


 http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg


Thanks, Terry.

The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell.

It is a little hard to see from the photo, but I gather you can actually
see inside the box below the cell somewhat more than you can from this
photo.

When I talk about displacement I mean that they poured out all of the water
remaining in the cell after one of the runs, and it was roughly as much as
you would expect from a box of that size minus the displacement of the
cell. There is no room left over for a hidden block of concrete, or an 8 kW
heater, butane fuel, or what have you. What you can see accounts for all of
the space, as measured by the volume of water.

You can also see that there is no room in the walls to hide material with
much thermal mass, or much butane fuel, or anything else. If there was
pre-heated material in the walls, no matter how good the installation is,
the walls would be warm to the touch and people would have noticed that
when they picked the reactor up to put on the weight scale.

You can see from the rust and wear that this has been tested several times.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-08 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell.

Those heat fins reside on both the top and bottom.  Three reactors are
sandwiched within.  There were a lot of witnesses who described it.

Concrete proof?  ;-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-08 Thread Terry Blanton

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 The corrugated thing at the top which looks like a radiator is the cell.

 Those heat fins reside on both the top and bottom.

Look at Bob Higgins' diagram:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php

My guess is it's pretty accurate.  Hey, he cites you, Horace!

T

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress


Some more inside shots

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295952.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpg

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295953.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_468_320.jpghttp://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295953.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_468_320.jpg

AG

On 11/9/2011 9:06 AM, Terry Blanton wrote:

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Horace Heffnerhheff...@mtaonline.net  wrote:


Just to be clear, they say they saw inside the 30x30x30 cm inside box in the
6 Oct E-cat demo?  Do you have a reference on this?

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg

Source:

http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi

T

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:

Some more inside shots

http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3295952.ece/**
BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_**sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpghttp://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295952.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpg

That's a good photo.

Boy, what a mess! It looks like an old automobile radiator. It must have
been run for a hundred hours.

People say that when you are there in the room, looking into it, you can
see there is nothing much below the cell or above it except the cooling
fins. You can see approximately how big the cell-sandwich inside it is.
Anyway, as I said, you can tell there is nothing big hidden below it by
displacement. Eureka! -- as the bald guy said, bounding out of the bath
buck naked.

One person looking at it seemed disappointed, and said, what, is that all
there is to it?

It is an unprepossessing object.

Mary Yugo finds it hard to believe that Rossi and Fioravanti would treat
this test and this reactor with such a casual attitude. Almost with
disdain. They express no gravitas. They sign off on a report that mainly
cites continued leaks with gaskets. This is just another work-a-day event
for them, not an historic occasion. I told her that is typical of people
doing research. The thing is, this *was* just another in a series of tests.
Rossi has been doing this for years. You can see from the rust that he has
been testing this module for months. Ed Storms says that seeing a cold
fusion reaction is about as interesting as watching paint dry. Experienced
cold fusion researchers do not get excited when they see cold fusion. It is
no big deal to them.

The other thing about many of these researchers is their safety standards
are nonexistent. People such as Ohmori thought nothing of having an open,
cracked quartz glass test tube full of boiling lithium heavy water, spewing
drops around. That's highly toxic. Mizuno would stand at door to Ohmori's
lab, which was hidden in an abandoned building, filled with ancient
instruments and equipment from a junked high energy physics experiment -- a
classic bootleg experiment that the university wanted to deep-six -- and
Mizuno would say to me: You go in if you like. That place scares the hell
out of me. This, from a guy who scavenged old stainless steel vessels and
ran them at higher pressure and temperatures than the manufacturer ever
intended.

Believe me, I had good reasons for worrying that Rossi might blow himself
up. I know these people!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Yes it looks a mess but just created a lot more energy than was 
inputted, so fair go. As for the fin design, I could do better 40 years 
ago. I mean the water enters in the lower left corner at the bottom and 
the steam exits at the upper right on the top. I assume the rate of 
water flow through that box is slow and if so the fin orientation is not 
that important. Still it would not be hard to do a better job, he says 
inside a fire proof suit having yet to build and then to get working a 
LENR device ;)


This E-Cat is like a very early model T prototype. It works but boy is 
there a lot that can be done to reduce cost and improve performance, 
which is exactly what a engineering in a hurry would have built.


AG


On 11/9/2011 12:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com 
mailto:aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote:


Some more inside shots


http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295952.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_sprattad_lada_1_468_320.jpg


That's a good photo.

Boy, what a mess! It looks like an old automobile radiator. It must 
have been run for a hundred hours.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread.   I am very  
disappointed.  The confusion here is incredible.  It also appears no  
one has read my paper at all:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME  
CALCULATIONS, wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in  
my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the  
inside of the 30x30x30 cm inside box that supposedly houses one to  
three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please,  
Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when I said no  
one saw inside it at the demo.   I was *not* referring to the roughly  
50x60x35 cm *exterior* box.  The posters on this for some reason seem  
to confuse the two boxes.  Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm inside box the  
reactor, though it clearly is much more than the reactor.  It is  
a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and  
protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit  
pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the frequency  
generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the box.


The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The  
50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except  
when water levels and temperatures are simulated.


It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the  
photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This  
reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time.


Here are the important facts:

1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box.  It was  
not opened.


2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what was  
shown in the various photos.  He did not see any exterior structures  
that might be important, such as
holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were  
the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs.


3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the  
exterior box.  It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top  
are present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box.


4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles, fire  
brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring, hidden  
water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not opened.


5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside box,  
together weigh 98 kg.  Clearly the inside and outside boxes, pipes  
and bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98 kg.  The  
boxes are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of the 30x30x30  
cm box and its interior contents is very high.


I am attempting to construct my simulation within these constraints.

I think Bob Higgen's diagram at:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php

is inaccurate. The reactor is enclosed inside the 30x30x30 cm  
interior box.  The fins are not as big as shown.  There is only one  
set of fins, on top.  The thermocouple is much longer than shown and  
likely rests against the edge of the inside box, and probably on the  
flanges of the inside box, which are not shown.  The gaps between the  
inside box and the edges of the outside box are too large in  
proportion.  The 50x60x35 cm exterior box dimensions include the  
flanges to which the top panel is bolted. This only leaves a few  
centimeters gap (5 cm on the ends, 3 cm on the sides, excluding the  
flanges) between the inside box and the outside box. See the sections  
of my paper referenced above.  I should note here that I am working  
on an update of those sections based on an improved photo analysis.


Here are my best numbers so far:

Width of E-cat inside box:  30.3 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, flange to flange: 49.6 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, side to side : 40.6 cm
Interior length of E-cat outside box: = 46.3 cm

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

I wrote: It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor  
dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed  
conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the  
frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the  
box.


That should read: It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the  
reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 1/4 inch and 1 inch water  
sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the  
frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the  
box.


I wrote: 1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm  
box.  It was not opened.


That should read: 1. None of the observes at the 6 Oct demo saw  
inside the 30x30x30 cm box.  It was not opened.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E-Cat 
photos.


What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation fins, 
external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate water and 
steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and not 
inside the reactor core as you suggest.


The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and not 
from the reactor core as you suggest.


This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet fitting on 
the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the Higgins 
drawings suggests) and there is no water inside the smaller finned 
reactor core. See attached photo.


From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the reactor 
core to supply H, heater power and RF energy.


Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical 
reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of the 
reactor core as Higgins suggests.


AG

On 11/9/2011 4:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread.   I am very 
disappointed.  The confusion here is incredible.  It also appears no 
one has read my paper at all:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME 
CALCULATIONS, wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in my 
paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the inside 
of the 30x30x30 cm inside box that supposedly houses one to three 1 
cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please, Rossi made 
both statements), and to which I referred when I said no one saw 
inside it at the demo.   I was *not* referring to the roughly 50x60x35 
cm *exterior* box.  The posters on this for some reason seem to 
confuse the two boxes.  Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm inside box the 
reactor, though it clearly is much more than the reactor.  It is a 
reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor dry and protected, 
and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed conduit pipes connect 
which carry water, main power, and the frequency generator power 
from the outside to the stuff inside the box.


The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 
50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except 
when water levels and temperatures are simulated.


It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the 
photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This 
reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time.


Here are the important facts:

1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box.  It was 
not opened.


2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what was 
shown in the various photos.  He did not see any exterior structures 
that might be important, such as
holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were the 
bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs.


3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the 
exterior box.  It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top are 
present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box.


4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles, fire 
brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring, hidden 
water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not opened.


5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside box, 
together weigh 98 kg.  Clearly the inside and outside boxes, pipes and 
bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98 kg.  The boxes 
are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of the 30x30x30 cm box 
and its interior contents is very high.


I am attempting to construct my simulation within these constraints.

I think Bob Higgen's diagram at:

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php

is inaccurate. The reactor is enclosed inside the 30x30x30 cm interior 
box.  The fins are not as big as shown.  There is only one set of 
fins, on top.  The thermocouple is much longer than shown and likely 
rests against the edge of the inside box, and probably on the flanges 
of the inside box, which are not shown.  The gaps between the inside 
box and the edges of the outside box are too large in proportion.  The 
50x60x35 cm exterior box dimensions include the flanges to which the 
top panel is bolted. This only leaves a few centimeters gap (5 cm on 
the ends, 3 cm on the sides, excluding the flanges) between the inside 
box and the outside box. See the sections of my paper referenced 
above.  I should note here that I am working on an update of those 
sections based on an improved photo analysis.


Here are my best numbers so far:

Width of E-cat inside box:  30.3 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, flange to flange: 49.6 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, side to side : 40.6 cm
Interior length of E-cat outside box: = 46.3 cm

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E- 
Cat photos.


What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation  
fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate  
water and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing  
suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest.


Nonsense!

That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been in  
doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the possibility  
ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed and limited  
water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the resulting steam  
emissions.  The source and destination of the water/steam is of  
course the outside box, and then the top vent.  You assertion that  
you can determine whether or not this occurs from the photos is the  
nonsense.





The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and  
not from the reactor core as you suggest.


You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did you  
not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo analysis?


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer  
box through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of  
which I determined by photo analysis?





This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet  
fitting on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the  
Higgins drawings suggests)


Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the left  
front.



and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core.


This you have no way of knowing.



See attached photo.

From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the  
reactor core to supply H, heater power and RF energy.


There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for frequency generator  
input.


Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical  
reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of  
the reactor core as Higgins suggests.


Of course there is room.  The problem is the fins were not observed  
there by Mats Lewan who had extensive access at the demo being  
discussed.




AG

On 11/9/2011 4:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread.   I am  
very disappointed.  The confusion here is incredible.  It also  
appears no one has read my paper at all:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME  
CALCULATIONS, wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2  
in my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing  
the inside of the 30x30x30 cm inside box that supposedly houses  
one to three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you  
please, Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when  
I said no one saw inside it at the demo.   I was *not* referring  
to the roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box.  The posters on this  
for some reason seem to confuse the two boxes.  Jed calls the  
30x30x30 cm inside box the reactor, though it clearly is much  
more than the reactor.  It is a reactor housing that supposedly  
keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1  
inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main  
power, and the frequency generator power from the outside to the  
stuff inside the box.


The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The  
50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant,  
except when water levels and temperatures are simulated.


It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen  
the photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This  
reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time.


Here are the important facts:

1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box.  It  
was not opened.


2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what  
was shown in the various photos.  He did not see any exterior  
structures that might be important, such as
holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were  
the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs.


3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the  
exterior box.  It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top  
are present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box.


4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles,  
fire brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring,  
hidden water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not  
opened.


5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside  
box, together weigh 98 kg.  Clearly the inside and outside boxes,  
pipes and bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98  
kg.  The boxes are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical old 
power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory of scam 
that requires you to prove it. If I say I doubt your theory, that is my 
right and you have no right to say Nonsense cause you have absolutely 
no proof of what you suggest is even remotely true.


As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term 
reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells? If not why? If yes 
then why do you doubt Rossi?


AG

On 11/9/2011 5:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:

I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed 
E-Cat photos.


What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation fins, 
external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate water 
and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and 
not inside the reactor core as you suggest.


Nonsense!

That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been in 
doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the possibility 
ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed and limited 
water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the resulting steam 
emissions.  The source and destination of the water/steam is of course 
the outside box, and then the top vent.  You assertion that you can 
determine whether or not this occurs from the photos is the nonsense.





The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and 
not from the reactor core as you suggest.


You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did you 
not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo analysis?


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer box 
through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of which I 
determined by photo analysis?





This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet fitting 
on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the Higgins 
drawings suggests)


Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the left 
front.



and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core.


This you have no way of knowing.



See attached photo.

From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the reactor 
core to supply H, heater power and RF energy.


There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for frequency generator 
input.


Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical 
reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of the 
reactor core as Higgins suggests.


Of course there is room.  The problem is the fins were not observed 
there by Mats Lewan who had extensive access at the demo being discussed.




AG

On 11/9/2011 4:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread.   I am very 
disappointed.  The confusion here is incredible.  It also appears no 
one has read my paper at all:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

especially the sections T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION and VOLUME 
CALCULATIONS, wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in 
my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the 
inside of the 30x30x30 cm inside box that supposedly houses one to 
three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please, 
Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when I said no 
one saw inside it at the demo.   I was *not* referring to the 
roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box.  The posters on this for some 
reason seem to confuse the two boxes.  Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm 
inside box the reactor, though it clearly is much more than the 
reactor.  It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor 
dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed 
conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the 
frequency generator power from the outside to the stuff inside the 
box.


The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The 
50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except 
when water levels and temperatures are simulated.


It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the 
photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This 
reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time.


Here are the important facts:

1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box.  It was 
not opened.


2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what 
was shown in the various photos.  He did not see any exterior 
structures that might be important, such as
holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were 
the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs.


3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the 
exterior box.  It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top 
are present on the

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Berke Durak

You are proposing a theory where a slug of hot iron releases its stored
energy.

The e-Cats have enough internal volume to store the reported amount of energy
produced in very hot iron, and it is theoretically possible to insulate them
using aerogel so that they'll keep their heat for a few hours.  Install a
controllable heat-exchange mechanism, program the software to emulate a
reactor output, et voilà!

Except that this theory deosn't fly for the 1 MW demo.  About 9.5 GJ was
produced.  I've done some layman calculations, and using aerogel, you could go
to 1200 degrees Celsius, and the amount of iron required would be about 250 kg
per module.

Look at the pictures of the e-Cat.  The modules are standing on pieces of metal
supported by 5 cm x 5 cm angle sections about 5mm thick.  I don't think you can
put 500 - 750 kg over 1.5 m on such angle sections.
-- 
Berke durak

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence

Quick question, Horace:  Are you going for the 470kW which was claimed, 
or are you working with a reduced number?


The 470 value seems to have been predicated, once again, on total 
vaporization of the input water.  If that didn't take place then the 
generated power may have been substantially lower.




On 11-11-07 01:34 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat designs 
to fit the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated various 
combinations of materials for thermal storage and have found that a 
couple slabs of ordinary Portland cement with a heating resistor 
sandwiched between them seems to fit the properties of the E-cat 
fairly well in terms of heat storage dynamics.  All but the slab ends 
can be insulated with vermiculite.  With a lot of experimentation (by 
simulation) a much better fit can probably be obtained, using mixed 
materials, but what I have now is very simple and looks like it will 
be fairly good once control dynamics are added.  It is most notable 
that attempting to simulate results from a black box using rational 
and credible designs is far more difficult than simulating prospective 
designs for a new construction of some kind.  In the latter case 
control of the design is available and all is known.  In the former 
case the degrees of freedom for the black box contents provide 
increased orders of magnitude of difficulty.  Given the unreliability 
of the data, it is perhaps a nonsensical thing to attempt, and has 
been given far to more effort than is justified.


I have only been working on the basics.  I have not yet begun to fully 
explore the dynamics of water volume fluctuations and the possible 
dynamic controls suggested in my review at:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

Some sample graphs of ouput data, corresponding to Graph 2 and Graph 5 
are shown here:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph2S.png

corresponds to Graph 2 at:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph2.png

and:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph5S.png

corresponds to graph 5 here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph5.png

The difference between old graphs and the new corresponding graphs is 
that the outputs in the new graphs were calculated using only the 
input data, not using the experiment output data at all.


I also produce a dynamic temperature profile of one of two internal 
slabs of cement assumed in the simulation to exist in the E-cat  
(their profiles are symmetric):


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png

This profile will look very different if dynamic control is used to 
control timing of when heat is released from the slabs, e.g. when 
water is admitted to the inside of the E-cat case to absorb the slab 
heat, or when slabs are joined under pressure to transmit heat better.


Some sample text output from a run is shown here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptR4

Graph 6S that demonstrates the FEA part of the simulation. It shows 
the largest thermal gradient at the water side of a cement slab 
between times T300 (min) and T330, well after the power cutoff at 
T281, and thus the largest thermal output after or before the power 
was cut off.  This corresponds to the nice bump in the power out curve 
between T300 and T330 in Graph 2S.   I think the power out peak will 
be pushed further to the right once I get logic in the program to 
reduce water access to the heat in the slab in proportion to the power 
supplied.   The heat released prior to the main power cut-off at T281 
can be reduced if dynamic controls are in place and thus the curve 
prior to T281 will be reduced to look more like Graph 2, and the heat 
after death power curve will be shifted to the right and increased in 
magnitude.  Also, the slab, or possibly one of two slabs, of material 
can fully and uniformly come up to temperature, essentially doubling 
the thermal storage.  In a realistic device the water interface should 
be metallic, at least a thin layer, but this has little effect on the 
overall thermal dynamics.


I have been looking for a very small normally open valve with a 
(current) proportional response.  It only needs to control a flow of 
about 4 ml per second, or about 0.24  liters per minute.  I think I 
could make one using a Taco Power Head zone valve actuator (discarding 
the metal case), but I'll bet there is something available off the 
shelf.  It would have to be small and able to work in up to maybe 
120°C heat, using only about 7 watts of power.  Here is the best I've 
found, but it would need to be smaller and cover a smaller flow rate, 
and doesn't need to handle such extreme pressures:


http://www.hydraforce.com/proport/Prop_html/2-380-1_PV08-31/2-380-1_PV08-31.htm 



I like the operating temperature!

Temperature: -40° to 100°C (-40° to 212°F) with Buna seals; -26° to 
204°C (-15° to 400°F) with Fluorocarbon seals

These are interesting, but too large and not heat tolerant:

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Jed Rothwell

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


 I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat designs to
 fit the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated various
 combinations of materials for thermal storage and have found that a couple
 slabs of ordinary Portland cement with a heating resistor sandwiched
 between them seems to fit the properties of the E-cat fairly well in terms
 of heat storage dynamics.


I don't get this. What is the point of this simulation? It cannot explain
the salient facts about the reactor:

* There is no slab of cement in the reactor. People have looked inside and
seen no such thing. Plus the reactor would weigh far more than it does if
there was concrete in it. It would take a gigantic slab to vaporize 60 L of
water, much larger than the reactor.

* There is no power going into resistors for 4 hours during the
self-sustaining run.

* The entire reactor starts at room temperature. There is no way you could
hide a very hot object inside it. No insulation is good enough to keep the
surface from being quite warm. When people pick up the reactor to prevent
weight scale they would feel it is hot.

* All of the heat added to the reactor initially is measured and it is far
less than the heat that came out.

So this is not prospective E-cat design. It is not a way to simulate the
performance of the E-cat.

I do not understand what you are getting at here.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 7, 2011, at 12:31 AM, John Bresnahan wrote:


Dear Mr. (Dr.?) Heffner,

I've been eagerly following your posting on the Vortex mailing  
list, and wish to thank you for the thoughtful analysis you are  
providing.


Regarding the small valve in your model of Rossi's E-Cat device  
from the October 6th test, could it be that Rossi's frequency  
generator is used to control and power the valve?


Just a thought.

Sincerely,
John Bresnahan



On Nov 7, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Berke Durak wrote:

You are proposing a theory where a slug of hot iron releases its  
stored

energy.


No.  I only used that as an initial example for discussion.  I am now  
looking at, simulating, concrete and other materials, individually or  
in combination, as noted in my prior post.




The e-Cats have enough internal volume to store the reported amount  
of energy
produced in very hot iron, and it is theoretically possible to  
insulate them
using aerogel so that they'll keep their heat for a few hours.   
Install a
controllable heat-exchange mechanism, program the software to  
emulate a

reactor output, et voilà!


No computer is required.  The heat flow can be controlled simply  
using the input power profile and a second connection for direct  
control, e.g. from the frequency generator input. I looked at  
aerogel, but more mundane insulations are likely good enough.





Except that this theory deosn't fly for the 1 MW demo.  About 9.5  
GJ was

produced.


There is no credible evidence that 9.5 GJ was produced in my opinion.  
The 1 MW demo was disgusting scientifically speaking.  It was a major  
step backwards in calorimetry method from the prior test. In any case  
it is not my subject matter. The 1 MW test was so bad I see no sense  
in discussing it.



I've done some layman calculations, and using aerogel, you could go
to 1200 degrees Celsius, and the amount of iron required would be  
about 250 kg

per module.

Look at the pictures of the e-Cat.  The modules are standing on  
pieces of metal
supported by 5 cm x 5 cm angle sections about 5mm thick.  I don't  
think you can

put 500 - 750 kg over 1.5 m on such angle sections.


Cement has 3 times the specific heat of iron. Also, the heat output  
is not substantiated. Neither is the energy input.  I will not  
respond further to comment regarding the 1 MW test as I see it as  
irrelevant and far less credibly executed and reported than the prior  
test. However, pure cement thermal output for the 6 Oct test would  
peak at time T550, 550 minutes after start of the run, which is too  
late, and the peak too little, without combining the cement with  
metal slabs or mixtures.




--
Berke durak


On Nov 6, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:

I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat  
designs to fit the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated  
various combinations of materials for thermal storage and have  
found that a couple slabs of ordinary Portland cement with a  
heating resistor sandwiched between them seems to fit the  
properties of the E-cat fairly well in terms of heat storage dynamics.





Call me Horace. I am simply an amateur, not a Dr..

I have appended the ACTIVE CONTROL and DYNAMIC FEA SIMULATION  
sections from my review, because they provide some clarification.


I think the fine temperature control exhibited in response to the  
very small control current from the frequency generator, in Graph 3;


http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph3.png

demonstrates the possibility there are two independent, thermally  
isolated, slabs of material involved.  This is also confirmed  
somewhat by the steep power decline curve at the end of the test.  It  
is also consistent with this assumption that the frequency  
generator was controlled by a variac.


As I noted in my last post, the material used to produce the  
simulation graphs was *Portland cement*, not iron.  (BTW that was a  
clerical error on my part.  The parameters actually shown were those  
of fire brick. I simply picked iron as an example for my initial  
calculations in the data review paper because iron has a fairly high  
specific heat and iron is commonly used in radiators, etc.



The following slab commands show some materials I have briefly  
investigated individually or in combinations:


* slab thick spec cond den
* . slab description follows slab command ...
*
slab 20  0.46 80.4  7.874
iron
slab  1  0.84 0.01  0.002
aerogel
slab  5  2.30 0.64  0.92
HDPE
slab  5  1.00 1.31  2.40
ceramic
slab 5 0.84 0.166 1.4
asbestos cement
slab 20  0.13 35.3  11.34
lead
slab 20 0.87 255 2.7
aluminum
slab 30 1.05 1.4 2.4
fire brick
slab 120  1.55 0.29  1.506
Portland Cement



ACTIVE CONTROL

To make any sense of the data with a non-nuclear explanation, it  
appears the electric heating power must be separated into two parts,  
one part which heats the water directly, and one part which heats an  
internal mass.  In addition, it appears there needs to

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat  
designs to fit the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated  
various combinations of materials for thermal storage and have  
found that a couple slabs of ordinary Portland cement with a  
heating resistor sandwiched between them seems to fit the  
properties of the E-cat fairly well in terms of heat storage dynamics.


I don't get this. What is the point of this simulation?


I see no point in debating this with you at all at this point.It  
it very time consuming, and I prefer to spend the time productively.   
I still am not at a point where I can even write the paper or the  
simulation results  much less debate results.  Nevertheless I'll give  
you one response and then go back to work on it.



It cannot explain the salient facts about the reactor:


If you spent an hour or so looking at what I actually provided  
instead of generating arm waving non quantitative babble then you  
might gain some understanding.




* There is no slab of cement in the reactor. People have looked  
inside and seen no such thing.


There is no record I know of showing anyone having access to the  
inside of the 30  cm x 30 cm x 30 cm interior box.  The slab report  
shows a probably *insufficient* mass (for fire brick) of 48.4416 kg.   
See:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptR4

A Slab Report for Portland cement follows:

  Slab Report

i  WidthSp.Ht.Cap.   Therm.Cond.  Den. Description
   (nwidth) (J/(g K))(W/(m K))(g/cm^3)

1   120   1.550   00.291.506   Portland Cement

i  WidthThm. Mass   Therm.Res.Mass Description
   (cm) (kJ/°C)  (°C/W)   (kg)

1  12.0047.11551   2.460125   30.3971  Portland Cement
   = ==   ===
   12.0047.11551   2.460125   30.3971Totals

You can see cement only requires 30.4 kg instead of 48 kg, to provide  
a thermal mass of  47 kJ/°C vs 51 kJ/°C.   A significant portion of  
concrete mass requires replacement with something like aluminum or  
iron to bring the thermal resistance down to where it needs to be and  
bring the mass up to where it needs to be.


Cement requires even less mass than fire brick because it has 3 times  
the specific heat of iron, and 50 percent more than fire brick.


The device weighed 98 kg.  The metal boxes are sheet metal.  You  
think a couple sheet metal boxes, a few pipe fittings and the bolts  
weigh 98 kg or even 50 kg?  To me this makes no sense.


Plus the reactor would weigh far more than it does if there was  
concrete in it.


You ignored the numbers I provided.   The slab provided actually may  
provide too little mass.  Certainly Portland cement (as opposed to  
the fire brick actually shown) would have too little mass.


It would take a gigantic slab to vaporize 60 L of water, much  
larger than the reactor.


There is no evidence 60 L of water was actually vaporized.  This is  
just an arm waving number without substantiation.  No one knows the  
actual amount of water vaporized in any of the tests due to bad  
calorimetry.




* There is no power going into resistors for 4 hours during the  
self-sustaining run.


If you look at the run data you will see that I used exactly the same  
power input profile provided by Mats Lewan.  The only thing unusual,  
and wrong, is that I used a starting temperature of 100°C.   This has  
only a small effect on the energy profile, and will be eliminated  
when I model volume stored, water temperature, etc.




* The entire reactor starts at room temperature. There is no way  
you could hide a very hot object inside it. No insulation is good  
enough to keep the surface from being quite warm. When people pick  
up the reactor to prevent weight scale they would feel it is hot.


* All of the heat added to the reactor initially is measured and it  
is far less than the heat that came out.


There was no dependable measurement of the heat that came out.



So this is not prospective E-cat design. It is not a way to  
simulate the performance of the E-cat.


That depends on exactly what the Pout thermocouple was reading on the  
heat exchanger.




I do not understand what you are getting at here.


Yes indeed.  Apparently you do not understand.  I think this is due  
to invalid a priori assumptions on your part, especially in regards  
to thermal dynamics.   You think the output temperature curve can  
only decline after power is turned off.  This is clearly not true.




- Jed



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence

Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question.  I overlooked the fact that 
you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW run.


(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of-vaporization 
issues.)



On 11-11-07 09:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Quick question, Horace:  Are you going for the 470kW which was 
claimed, or are you working with a reduced number?


The 470 value seems to have been predicated, once again, on total 
vaporization of the input water.  If that didn't take place then the 
generated power may have been substantially lower.

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Quick question, Horace:  Are you going for the 470kW which was  
claimed, or are you working with a reduced number?


The 470 value seems to have been predicated, once again, on total  
vaporization of the input water.  If that didn't take place then  
the generated power may have been substantially lower.


I am mainly attempting to reproduce graphs 2 and 5:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph2.png

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph5.png

assuming a much lower energy than the 470kW claimed. To produce Graph  
5 I had to assume the calorimetry was off by a factor of 75%, i.e.  
the calorimeter indicated 4 times the true power.  This was a  
mistakes on my part, as was providing the 0.8°C bias based on the  
initial thermometer readings. This °C bias, as I noted in my review,  
added about 37% energy to the output.  I should have used the  
original data, not my biased data.


I suspect the displacement in temperature that occurs initially, as  
shown in Graph 4:


http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph4.png

may actually be due to the heat exchanger interior and the E-cat  
interior being cooler than the water temperature at the time of the  
run start.  Perhaps some cold air flow from the E-cat may have made  
it out of valve as the cold water initially displaced it in the E- 
cat. In any case, if the actual data is used, then the discrepancy  
between claimed power out and negative COP power out is not so large.  
I suspect the Pout thermocouple was not even touching the nut, that  
the frayed insulation was in part between the thermocouple tip and  
the nut, thus exposing the thermocouple primarily to the air  
temperature under the insulation.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question.  I overlooked the fact  
that you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW  
run.


(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of- 
vaporization issues.)




Yes. I am having problems keeping track of things, and have not been  
able to read much on vortex of late. Sorry I am a bit behind   
responding, and our messages crossed.


Something of possible interest is that the (real) cement slab data is  
here:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6Sb.png

This can be compared to the fire brick data here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png

The cement data shows the peak energy output much delayed vs the fire  
brick, around T540 vs T330. However the peak power out delivered is  
less.  A similar phenomenon should occur if controls are used to cut  
back the power out to make a 6 hour run vs 4 hour run. If the power  
out were actually from nuclear energy, not thermal energy stored  
using electric power, then such a large drop in output should not be  
necessary to accommodate the longer run time. Rossi actually stated  
on his blog, if I recall correctly, that the power was reduced from 1  
MW because the (prospective) customer required 6 hours instead of 4.


Obviously the shortcoming from the 1 MW output expectation  
(objective?) was the fault of the customer!  8^)


Obviously, I claim, as I wave my arms wildly.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread David Roberson


This exercise has me confused.  Are you making an attempt to demonstrate that 
it is possible to make a scam ECAT?  That would of course be instructive since 
Rossi has never run an ECAT for an extended period of time as a single unit.  I 
suspect that we should consider that he is telling the truth about only 
populating 1 core within the large case for the October 6 test.  If you 
calculate that three times the excess heat energy would be generated  with the 
same input when all 3 cores are installed, then a fake unit is much more 
dificult to achieve.  What are we to assume?  Do you think that Rossi is 
totally dishonest?

I wish you good luck with your endeavor.

Dave  



-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 3:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress




On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

 
I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat designs to fit 
the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated various combinations of 
materials for thermal storage and have found that a couple slabs of ordinary 
Portland cement with a heating resistor sandwiched between them seems to fit 
the properties of the E-cat fairly well in terms of heat storage dynamics.


I don't get this. What is the point of this simulation?



I see no point in debating this with you at all at this point.It it very 
time consuming, and I prefer to spend the time productively.  I still am not at 
a point where I can even write the paper or the simulation results  much less 
debate results.  Nevertheless I'll give you one response and then go back to 
work on it. 



It cannot explain the salient facts about the reactor:



If you spent an hour or so looking at what I actually provided instead of 
generating arm waving non quantitative babble then you might gain some 
understanding.  





* There is no slab of cement in the reactor. People have looked inside and seen 
no such thing. 



There is no record I know of showing anyone having access to the inside of the 
30  cm x 30 cm x 30 cm interior box.  The slab report shows a probably 
*insufficient* mass (for fire brick) of 48.4416 kg.  See:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptR4


A Slab Report for Portland cement follows:



  Slab Report


i  WidthSp.Ht.Cap.   Therm.Cond.  Den. Description
   (nwidth) (J/(g K))(W/(m K))(g/cm^3)


1   120   1.550   00.291.506   Portland Cement


i  WidthThm. Mass   Therm.Res.Mass Description
   (cm) (kJ/°C)  (°C/W)   (kg)


1  12.0047.11551   2.460125   30.3971  Portland Cement
   = ==   ===
   12.0047.11551   2.460125   30.3971Totals



You can see cement only requires 30.4 kg instead of 48 kg, to provide a thermal 
mass of  47 kJ/°C vs 51 kJ/°C.   A significant portion of concrete mass 
requires replacement with something like aluminum or iron to bring the thermal 
resistance down to where it needs to be and bring the mass up to where it needs 
to be. 


Cement requires even less mass than fire brick because it has 3 times the 
specific heat of iron, and 50 percent more than fire brick. 


The device weighed 98 kg.  The metal boxes are sheet metal.  You think a couple 
sheet metal boxes, a few pipe fittings and the bolts weigh 98 kg or even 50 kg? 
 To me this makes no sense.



Plus the reactor would weigh far more than it does if there was concrete in it. 



You ignored the numbers I provided.   The slab provided actually may provide 
too little mass.  Certainly Portland cement (as opposed to the fire brick 
actually shown) would have too little mass. 



It would take a gigantic slab to vaporize 60 L of water, much larger than the 
reactor.



There is no evidence 60 L of water was actually vaporized.  This is just an arm 
waving number without substantiation.  No one knows the actual amount of water 
vaporized in any of the tests due to bad calorimetry. 





* There is no power going into resistors for 4 hours during the self-sustaining 
run.



If you look at the run data you will see that I used exactly the same power 
input profile provided by Mats Lewan.  The only thing unusual, and wrong, is 
that I used a starting temperature of 100°C.   This has only a small effect on 
the energy profile, and will be eliminated when I model volume stored, water 
temperature, etc.   





* The entire reactor starts at room temperature. There is no way you could hide 
a very hot object inside it. No insulation is good enough to keep the surface 
from being quite warm. When people pick up the reactor to prevent weight scale 
they would feel it is hot.


* All of the heat added to the reactor initially is measured and it is far less 
than the heat that came out.



There was no dependable measurement of the heat that came out

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Jed Rothwell

Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


 If you spent an hour or so looking at what I actually provided instead of
 generating arm waving non quantitative babble then you might gain some
 understanding.


It is not arm waving to point out that THERE IS NO CONCRETE in the reactor.
None. You are wasting your time speculating about how this might work,
because people have look inside these reactors and they saw no concrete.

Are you postulating there is invisible concrete?



The device weighed 98 kg.  The metal boxes are sheet metal.  You think a
 couple sheet metal boxes, a few pipe fittings and the bolts weigh 98 kg or
 even 50 kg?  To me this makes no sense.


Evidently you forgot the thing has lead sheets in it.

It DOES have lead.

It DOES NOT have concrete.

Got it?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Colin Hercus

Hi Horace,

I was wondering if it's possible to do this with lead rather than another
material as long as you have sufficient insulation to reduce the heat flow
from the lead to the water. I did a simple simulation and it looked like
about 25kg of lead with about 12W/C heat flow would do the trick.
I was also thinking that you might get some stratification of the water
with cooler water at the bottom and hot near the top. In latter stages of
life after death this could be really important to keep the outflow at
100C.
For Oct 6th test it also requires water flow to match Mat Lewan's measured
rate rather than Rossis 11kg/h, which also leaves the possibility of the
flow rate being increased to shut down the reaction.

Best Regards, Colin

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:

On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question. I overlooked the fact that
you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW run.

(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of-vaporization
issues.)

Yes. I am having problems keeping track of things, and have not been able
to read much on vortex of late. Sorry I am a bit behind responding, and
our messages crossed.

Something of possible interest is that the (real) cement slab data is here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Graph6Sb.pnghttp://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph6Sb.png

This can be compared to the fire brick data here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Graph6S.pnghttp://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Graph6S.png

The cement data shows the peak energy output much delayed vs the fire
brick, around T540 vs T330. However the peak power out delivered is less.
A similar phenomenon should occur if controls are used to cut back the
power out to make a 6 hour run vs 4 hour run. If the power out were
actually from nuclear energy, not thermal energy stored using electric
power, then such a large drop in output should not be necessary to
accommodate the longer run time. Rossi actually stated on his blog, if I
recall correctly, that the power was reduced from 1 MW because the
(prospective) customer required 6 hours instead of 4.

Obviously the shortcoming from the 1 MW output expectation (objective?)
was the fault of the customer! 8^)

Obviously, I claim, as I wave my arms wildly. 8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Berke Durak

Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not
per volume.

One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per
kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something
like 2.33 MJ per kelvin.

In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800
degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees.

So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above
background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ.  One cubic
meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ.

Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported.
With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters.
With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters.

Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm.
That makes 4.7 cubic meters.  Not enough space for cement
(unless you know of some special kind of cement.)

Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at
250 kg per module.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Colin Hercus

Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make very little
steam

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

 Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not
 per volume.

 One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per
 kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something
 like 2.33 MJ per kelvin.

 In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800
 degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees.

 So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above
 background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ.  One cubic
 meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ.

 Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported.
 With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters.
 With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters.

 Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm.
 That makes 4.7 cubic meters.  Not enough space for cement
 (unless you know of some special kind of cement.)

 Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at
 250 kg per module.
 --
 Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Berke Durak

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote:
 Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make very little
 steam

But that assumes that the numbers are falsified.  In the customer's
public report, it says :

  Water vaporized : 3716 l.

So if that figure is false, anything goes and there is nothing left to
investigate.  You have
to put faith in something, otherwise it is pointless to discuss - just
call it a scam and move on.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 7, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:

If you spent an hour or so looking at what I actually provided  
instead of generating arm waving non quantitative babble then you  
might gain some understanding.


It is not arm waving to point out that THERE IS NO CONCRETE in the  
reactor. None. You are wasting your time speculating about how this  
might work, because people have look inside these reactors and they  
saw no concrete.


Are you postulating there is invisible concrete?



The device weighed 98 kg.  The metal boxes are sheet metal.  You  
think a couple sheet metal boxes, a few pipe fittings and the bolts  
weigh 98 kg or even 50 kg?  To me this makes no sense.


Evidently you forgot the thing has lead sheets in it.


Look at the photos.  If the wrapping was a lead sheet it was very thin.

Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of the  
30x30x30 interior box.





It DOES have lead.

It DOES NOT have concrete.

Got it?

- Jed



How about a reference instead of more arm waving?

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress



On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Berke Durak wrote:

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus  
colinher...@gmail.com wrote:
Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make  
very little

steam


But that assumes that the numbers are falsified.  In the customer's
public report, it says :

  Water vaporized : 3716 l.

So if that figure is false, anything goes and there is nothing left to
investigate.  You have
to put faith in something, otherwise it is pointless to discuss - just
call it a scam and move on.
--
Berke Durak



Anyone who believes that 3716 liter number with so little evidence  
deserves the E-cat he buys.


My work is focused on the 6 Oct. test.   I think the 1 MW test too  
nonsensical and data free to be worthy of a technical discussion.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

2011-11-07 Thread Robert Leguillon

The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the beginning. In 
the early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out of the E-Cat and down a 
drain,  without ever being collected or sparged.  In the 1MW demo, the steam is 
condensed and fed back in, there is no way of knowing how much water was 
actually vaporized.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, the stability of the temperature is the best 
indication that the water is pegged to a stable boiling point, and NOT being 
completely vaporized.
Minimal back pressure can explain the elevated boiling point.

Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote:
 Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make very little
 steam

But that assumes that the numbers are falsified.  In the customer's
public report, it says :

  Water vaporized : 3716 l.

So if that figure is false, anything goes and there is nothing left to
investigate.  You have
to put faith in something, otherwise it is pointless to discuss - just
call it a scam and move on.
-- 
Berke Durak


attachment: Randall-Steam-Water-Outflow-70.jpg

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress

I did try lead in various combinations with other materials.  It does  
not have very good characteristics.  I am working to duplicate the  
output power wave form, given the input power vs time, not just  
explain the energy balances.  I'll have more to say when I finish.


Horace

On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Colin Hercus wrote:


Hi Horace,

I was wondering if it's possible to do this with lead rather than  
another material as long as you have sufficient insulation to  
reduce the heat flow from the  lead to the water. I did a simple   
simulation and it looked like about 25kg of lead with about 12W/C  
heat flow would do the trick.
I was also thinking that you might get some stratification of the  
water with cooler water at the bottom and hot near the top. In  
latter stages of life after death this could be really important  
to keep the outflow at 100C.
For Oct 6th test it also requires water flow to match Mat Lewan's  
measured rate rather than Rossis 11kg/h, which also leaves the  
possibility of the flow rate being increased to shut down the  
reaction.


Best Regards, Colin

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Horace Heffner  
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Ah -- Sorry, Horace, disregard my question.  I overlooked the fact  
that you're ignoring the Oct 28 test, which was the (alleged) 470kW  
run.


(In any case, you obviously are well aware of the heat-of- 
vaporization issues.)



Yes. I am having problems keeping track of things, and have not  
been able to read much on vortex of late. Sorry I am a bit behind   
responding, and our messages crossed.


Something of possible interest is that the (real) cement slab data  
is here:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6Sb.png

This can be compared to the fire brick data here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png

The cement data shows the peak energy output much delayed vs the  
fire brick, around T540 vs T330. However the peak power out  
delivered is less.  A similar phenomenon should occur if controls  
are used to cut back the power out to make a 6 hour run vs 4 hour  
run. If the power out were actually from nuclear energy, not  
thermal energy stored using electric power, then such a large drop  
in output should not be necessary to accommodate the longer run  
time. Rossi actually stated on his blog, if I recall correctly,  
that the power was reduced from 1 MW because the (prospective)  
customer required 6 hours instead of 4.


Obviously the shortcoming from the 1 MW output expectation  
(objective?) was the fault of the customer!  8^)


Obviously, I claim, as I wave my arms wildly.  8^)


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Minor progress