(I posted this on https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/04/27/lets-join-forces-to-bring-out-the-truth-on-rossi-ih-affair-2 )
Hi folks ... jumping back in after a long absence (been working on a satellite/cellphone texting system). I'm "Alanf777" in a lot of places, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer For those who don't know me, I reported extensively on the ecat experiments, at http://lenr.qumbu.com/ (excluding the 1MW Bologna acceptance test). I am in the category of those who think that the Ecat is NOT a fake, but agree that many of the tests have been inconclusive. Note that I rated as "inconclusive" both the "heat exchanger" test (thermocouples mounted on the heat exchanger) and the Lugano report (emissivity questions) see http://lenr.qumbu.com/blackbody_141027A.php (Referenced in GSVIT). However, now that we know the players I discount most of the accusations of fraud, (fake power lines etc etc) unless IH were totally incompetent, or trying to defraud other investment groups. We have a total of FIVE tests of a Hotcat device 1. Penon report http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf (This was the one with a hole down the center). This had a steel outer cylinder, coated with refractory paint. NO ceramics involved. His initial calculation was wrong, but I can't find the revised report. (I think that the central hole and the entire inside of this hotcat were in thermal equilibrium, so we only have to consider radiation from the outer cyclinder.) 2. Levi et al Dec 2012, March 2013 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf HT0 (November) : self-destructed, melting steel and ceramic. (Noting that though none of the hotcat replications did that) HT1 (December) : Steel cylinder containing the charge Ceramic support for the heater wires Ceramic outer shell Refractory paint. HT2 (March) : Steel inner cyclinder Steel outer cyclinder Macota enamel paint HT-Dummy : same as HT2 Calibrated with known emissivity dots up to 300C (Out of range, but neither the steel cylinder nor enamel paint are likely to vary significantly in emissivity with wavelength.) 3. Lugano http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Omv%C3%A4rld_system/filer/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf Here we have emisssivity problems (I haven't studied Thomas Clarke's report ... though on Vortex we were warned not to accept it unconditionally). Also, the callibration runs were outside of the operational range. I invite Thomas Clarke and GSVIT to re-evaluate the Penon and Levi (2012-13) results using the callibrated emissivities of the refractory paints and/or the underlying steel cylinder. Back in 2011 http://evworld.com/blogs.cfm?blogid=972 I prophetically said Unfortunately the four tests didn’t measure everything, or weren’t run long enough, so although EVERY type of fake was eliminated by ONE experiment, no ONE experiment eliminated ALL possible fakes. Using these criteria, the eCAT is judged to be real by a preponderance of evidence, but not yet beyond all reasonable doubt. So here we are leaving behind (for the moment) both science and commerce .. and going to the courts!
