http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/phone-interview-with-sven-kullander/
(copied in full for critical commentary under fair use)
Phone Interview with Sven Kullander, Department of Radiation
Sciences, Uppsala University
June 20, 2011
Steven B. Krivit: When you looked at Andrea Rossi's Energy
Catalyzer, did you have the opportunity to see the output directly
from the outlet on the E-Cat or was the hose always attached to the outlet?
Sven Kullander: There is a valve on the top that was open and we
checked that the steam came out.
Krivit: Was the hose connected to the outlet at the same time you
checked the steam?
Kullander: Yes.
Krivit is driving at something. I.e., what if there is water flowing
out the hose? Steam out the top, water out the hose. Makes sense, eh?
However, Krivit doesn't want to reveal his agenda, I think. He is
treating the witness as an attorney would treat a hostile witness.
So, the hose was attached. Is there a valve in the hose line? If so,
was it open or closed. Krivit's questioning doesn't nail down the issues.
There is a very legitimate question here, and this is why I suggested
that this kind of demonstration have a tee, with valves. The tee has
one side connected to the chimney top, the opposite side has a valve
and a narrow spout that opens up to the air. The side of the tee is
connected through a valve to the hose.
Rossi is not likely to cooperate with efforts to create bulletproof
demos, but if Rossi were to announce the pipe fitting specifications
for the top of the chimney, and for the hose fitting, an observer
could bring this tee-valve assembly, it would cost a few dollars at a
hardware store. And that way the observers would know that the valves
really shut!
So, in operation, the demo would start with the hose valve closed and
the top valve open. When the thing heats up, steam would start coming
out of the top valve. (If it spits here, there is something wacky
inside, steam is getting trapped behind water, there should be no
spitting. The demo could alternately start with the hose valve open
and the top closed.)
At a certain point, a gap would appear in the steam plume, where it
is invisible. The length of that gap would vary directly with the
rate of steam generation (and that tee/valve assembly could later be
calibrated, so that video of the plume with a scale behind it would
give a direct measure of steam generation rate, i.e., power level,
very directly observed and not fakeable. I suppose there might be
some trick possible by mixing other fluids with water, like alcohol,
but .... you gotta stop somewhere! I wrote long ago that, once pure
fraud is on the table, anything is possible. Ruling out fraud and
maintaining industrial secrecy are incompatible.)
Then, because you don't want to fill the room with water vapor (in
the hot Italian summer!) you'd open the hose valve and shut the top
valve, but it could periodically be opened to check the steam
quality. Only dry steam will show that clear gap, if we are sure that
water isn't being spit out. (People have described the "sting test."
If one waves one's hand quickly through the live steam (very
quickly!), if there are water droplets, they will stick to the skin
and "sting," apparently. Very briefly. Someone experienced with steam
would surely know these tricks.
(There is a theory that entrained water droplets explain the
Fleischmann-Pons excess heat results. Doesn't work with closed cells,
but it was not cogent with the original F-P work either, the gas flow
out of the cell is quite low, not enough to carry water out, up a
long exit tube. But skeptical hope springs eternal.)
From Kullander, though, my guess, there was no valve on the hose. So
the steam relief on the top would only give a measure of the steam
quality, but not the total flow of steam, and could not rule out
water being forced out of the hose, since this water, if present as
liquid all the way up to the hose level, would still not produce
water in the steam above it. It would have been nice if Krivit had
nailed this down.
Krivit: Do you know if the steam dryness was measured by volume or by mass?
Kullander: I think it was measured by volume but I'm not sure.
If they physically observed the live steam, was that by volume or by
mass? There are various measures of steam dryness, I think. Some are
by volume and some are by mass. For calorimetry, we'd want mass, but
the other can be converted. Zero wetness is the same in both systems!
Krivit: What makes you think it was measured by volume?
Kullander: Because I don't see any mass involved, there is just
volume quantities. It was a measuring gauge that was inserted
inside. I could not see how that could be a mass measurement.
Nor a volume measurement, either. How could the gauge measure volume?
What it would measure is mass/volume. I think these things work by
capacitance, which will vary with humidity. See, Krivit doesn't
really ask the real question, how the dryness was measured. Instead,
he asks a detail, one that is actually quite off-point. That's
because he's looking for contradiction with what Levi and Rossi said.
He wants to be right, he wants them to be wrong. This leads him
astray, he misses the point.
Krivit: If you don't mind, can I ask who paid for your travel expenses?
Kullander: Rossi.
Very typical Krivit question. Krivit will use this, if history
repeats itself, to impeach Kullander's testimony as suspect, since
Rossi paid travel expenses. He may do this even if he doesn't
actually state the implication, he knows what effect that can arise
from stating that Rossi paid Kullander expenses, though Kullander's
stature is such that the payment of expenses is really quite
irrelevant. It would be no motive for him, and he'd be risking his
reputation and career if he distorted his report because of such consideration.
Now, me, on the other hand, trip to Italy? What do you want me to
say? Hotel and meals?
On second thought....
(By the way, the question about expenses was legitimate, merely not
all that interesting.)
