Here is another comment from Mats Lewan Hi Mary (Jed’s in CC again),
What I saw inside the Ecat is more or less what I published and what my photos from the inside showed – a block covered with flanges of heat exchanger type, I believe I said approximately 30x30x30 cm. There’s a photo from above where you can see cable and gas feedthroughs from the outside going into this block, which was bolted to the enclosing. Rossi told us that beneath the flanges there was supposedly a block of three reactor chambers, each 20x20x1 cm, enclosed by 4 cm shielding – I think he said lead. That is possible, as is of course any other object of that size. In theory I suppose he could have removed the flanges and the shielding to show the reactors, but that would probably have taken some time. As for energy storing I believe that has been clearly shown not to be a possible explanation in itself. You simply would need an additional heat source inside to have water boiling after 4 hours with cold water added continuously (I heard and felt the water boiling), hot water leaking and an external surface still at 60-85 degrees centigrade (I measured that with my own thermometer). A blank calibration poses some problems as once you have run the reactor with hydrogen, and that had certainly been made previously, you always have hydrogen loaded in the nickel even without pressure (if that is what’s inside) and because of that you cannot exclude that the reaction starts (if there’s a reaction). In any case a blank test wouldn’t exclude a fraud as you in theory could choose not to start the magic heat producing fraud technology in the blank test and then start it in the ‘real’ test. In that sense a blank test wouldn’t change anything. But all sorts of improvements could of course have been made in the measurements. Lots of them. They have been pointed out several times. Just to have the thermocouples in contact with the water flow, have them well calibrated before the test, and have data logged on an sd-card in the display unit would have been a fundamental improvement. Possible explanations as to why Rossi didn’t do this have all been presented – either he’s sloppy, either he wants to hide a fraud, or he’s basically not interesting in doing a proper test in order not to reveal too much. We cannot prove neither of them at this point. And at this point there’s not much more we can do but wait for more proof in one way or another. I suppose you have seen the analyses of October 6 by Heffner, Higgins and Roberson: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3295411.ece Roberson has made an updated version but I haven’t had time to publish it yet on the web. Kind Regards, Mats
