The problem is the need for replenishment. No mention of how much was added is in the report, and since the weight of the reservoir is not mentioned anyway, there's really nothing to falsify. The fact that it's not rocket science does not mean no one should pay attention to it. Could they not come up with a reservoir big enough to hold all the water for the experiment? That would have settled the question in a very simple and visual way; perfect for a *demonstration*.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > We discussed this some time ago. Check the archives. > > > > As you can see in the photos, the reservoir is sitting on a scale. They > monitor the decrease in water by grams and by the time for when refills are > added. This was done carefully and is not rocket science. > > > > Are you implying that the gram scale was falsified somehow as well? > > > > Also, it is not hard to confirm that 18 liters per hour is being pumped > through. You can't miss it; you have to replenish the reservoir, which is a > large transparent plastic box. > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Joshua Cude [ > > > > Response to the query fwded by Rich Murray (appended): > > I think the only people who can answer your questions are people who attended > the demo, the best person being Levi himself. But I agree that the pump is > suspicious. It looks exactly like the J5 pump you refer to, that has a max > flow rate of 2 gal (7.6L) per hr. In fact the only pumps that company makes > that exceed 2 gal/hr could not be mistaken for the one in the photo. So, the > only possibilities I can think of are that (i) the reported flow rate is > wrong, (ii) there is another company that makes an identical-looking pump > with a higher flow rate, or (iii) they have modified the pump to deliver a > higher flow rate. > > > > You're also right about the probes, but it's possible in that case that the > RH probe was simply not in place when the photo was made. In any case, it's > not clear how measurement of relative humidity is related to steam dryness -- > they are not the same thing. One could certainly establish the relationship > using wet and dry steam off-line, but no such measurements are reported or > claimed. So, as I have said before, I have no confidence in the claim that > the steam is dry. > > > > If the flow rate is wrong, and if the steam is as wet as I think it is, there > is no extra energy left to explain, and the Rossi show is over. It seems a > little odd though: would they connect the hydrogen bottle just for show? > > > > > > From: Franco Mattei <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM > > Subject: Bologna 14-jan-11 test on Rossi E-cat > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Dear Rich Murray, > > > > I follow with interest the debate on Rossi’s catalyzer on vortex-l. > > > > > > I see that you are very careful in analyzing the data from the > > 14-jan-2011 experiment, so I would like to know your opinion on the > > following aspect. > > > > > > I don’t know whether or not the E-cat really produces such a lot of excess > heat. > > > > I am not a CF expert nor a professor, I am still studying. > > > > > > I hope it does, so we can solve all our energy problems, especially > > here in Italy. > > > > But I have a doubt. > > > > Looking carefully to the jpg photos that can be downloaded from this > > website > > http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/bolognia-14111-cronaca-test-fusione_14.html > > > > , > > there are a couple of small incongruities, with respect to Prof. Levi report: > > > > 1 – the water pump appears to be very similar to LMI series J5, > > > > but this model delivers only 7.6 L/H > > (see > > http://hawkins.thomasnet.com/viewitems/lmi-metering-pumps/series-j5-12vdc-electronic-metering-pumps > > > > ); > > > > 2 – the RH-probe for vapor analysis, > > that I presume is the rod emerging from the top of the catalyzer, > > looks to be much longer of HP474AC model > > > > (see http://www.fattore.fi/33%20EXTECH/Extech%20ilmaVIRTAUSmittarit08.htm ). > > > > It looks more similar to SPC C-45-0500 BEX probe > > ( see http://www.fattore.fi/thermopari.html ), > > > > but this last is for temperature only (up to 1200°C). > > What do you think? > > Am I wrong? > > And, if not, how much important could these differences be for the > > > > result of the Bologna test? > > > > Thank you and best regards, Franco > >
