Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:48 AM 8/4/2011, Rich Murray wrote:

Thanks, Abd, for being so forthright


My sense is that most cold fusion researchers have become quite 
skeptical about Rossi. A few are "supportive," but mostly this boils 
down to them thinking that Rossi's claim confirms their own 
understanding of Ni-H. Even they are realizing that Rossi has 
probably faked some demonstrations.


By the way, the 18-hour test, on its own, certainly seems convincing, 
but the problem is that we can't trust it. Cold fusion researchers in 
general have been burned by years of rejection, so they are very 
reluctant to, themselves, reject. Rossi is a challenge to these, for, 
if they really look at the Rossi claims, they might gain more 
sympathy for the skeptics as to cold fusion. Skepticism was a 
rational response in 1989, and the politics of the situation 
effectively suppressed the wide dissemination of contrary evidence.


Pseudoskepticism is an entirely different phenomenon. It's not 
genuine skepticism, because genuine skepticism remembers to be 
skeptical of self.

Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:48 AM 8/4/2011, Rich Murray wrote:

I'm paying very little attention to any of the cold
fusion stuff now, assessing that nothing yet is independently
reproducible to refute the null hypothesis of "no anomalies"...


There is a large body of data showing independent reproducibility for 
cold fusion phenomena. CF has been plagued by the erratic nature of 
the phenomenon, due to its apparent sensitivity to unadequately 
understood conditions. However, there is a single reproducible 
experiment, that's been done by many groups, and that actually covers 
many of the early "negative replications," which form a body of controls.


It's just that it doesn't match the usual -- and obviously defective 
-- concept of "reproducible" that's been held up.


This would be heat/helium. Basically, run a series of 
Pons-Fleischmann type cells, designed to make the collection of 
helium possible. Miles was the original researcher to do this, in 
depth. Measure the heat, and collect and measure helium. Use the 
state of the art, as to achieving the PF heat effect.


The null hypothesis is that heat and helium are not correlated.

This has been done by many groups, in fact. No heat, no helium. Heat, 
helium proportional to the heat within experimental error of 24 MeV. 
There is practically no contrary data.


Like a lot of experiments, it's not easy to perform, and there is no 
longer much need to perform it. It's been done enough, my sense, but 
there could be room to determine that ratio more exactly.


Not all LENR will produce helium, but PdD in a Pons-Fleischmann 
experiment apparently does, and the fuel, from the ratio found, is 
apparently deuterium, which is only a surprise because d-d fusion was 
so unexpected. In fact, the reaction is probably not d-d, though that 
possibility is not *entirely* ruled out, and, my sense is that nobody 
really knows. No theory is sufficiently well elaborated to claim the 
prize, not yet. That's really a job for the quantum physicists, 
though some additional skills or knowledge sets are probably needed.


But helium is being produced, regardless of theory. There is 
practically no radiation. There are quite low levels of other 
transmutations, and that, if you want to doubt it, isn't as well 
established, and data is all over the map. But the main reaction, as 
we can tell from the heat, produces helium. 

Re: [Vo]:Time for a new poll?

[Bastiaan Bergman]

My take on it:

a) Old question, again :  Is the eCat steam quality a problem?

Definitely not a problem

Kullander-Essen report, even if 100% liquid phase still 2x!


b) New question : Do you now think the eCat is Real or Fake?Definitely Fake

Probably Real

Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[Rich Murray]

Well, Jed, maybe you're right at the cusp of a complete switch of your
gestalt of understandings re the Rossi phenomenon -- a little more
likely when waking up in the morning, you notice your entire system of
interpretations has irrevocably reversed, like a 3D shift in the way a
wire cube seems to face --
can't be forced or rushed -- just happens -- like remembering a name a
few minutes after choosing to stop trying to recall it...

Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Jed Rothwell]

Okay, it looks like it takes about 8 minutes to reach the whirlpool sensors
with hot water only.

Still in the ballpark.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Time for a new poll?

[Jed Rothwell]

Michele Comitini wrote:

What about something like "Do e-cat's people know how to make correct 
experiments ? "




My answer: Yes, they know how to do correct experiments, but they do not 
know how to write papers in English describing these experiments. Or if 
they know how to write such papers, they have not taken the trouble. 
This is an important experiment, so they should take the time.


I have no problem with the procedures or choice of instruments. Only the 
presentation is substandard. If I had been there during the 18-hour 
test, observing the procedures they did, I would have:


1. Collected data every 5 minutes manually into a lab notebook: flow 
rate, flow meter odometer reading, inlet, outlet temperature, and power 
meter instantaneous and total kWh.


2. I would have done some manual checks with my own instruments to 
confirm their instruments, such as collecting the flow for 20 seconds in 
bucket and confirming that it is weighs about 20 kg.


3. From that I would have published a paper that sensible people would 
find convincing. The extreme skeptics would not believe it. People who 
imagine that conventional flow calorimetry might be wrong by a factor of 
1,000 for no apparent reason would not believe it. But any HVAC engineer 
would know it is correct.


They could have done this, even without a computer or video cameras, 
using the laboratory techniques I learned in grade school in the 1960s. 
I mean techniques such as keeping a lab notebook and writing down the 
date, time and instrument values, and then setting a kitchen timer to 
remind yourself to write them down again in 5 minutes (or 10 minutes 
after a while). This is not rocket science. I am sure this is how Levi 
was trained to do experiments. Everyone his age and mine, who grew up 
and went to college before we had computers, learned to do it this way.


If they have a lab notebook, I hope I can persuade them to publish more 
data from it. They deserve to be criticized for holding back this kind 
of data. It is unprofessional. An inspector doing a boiler test is 
justified in writing down only one value. It does not even need to be a 
computed average or a thermocouple min/max reading. It can be "what the 
thermometer showed most of the time." One value is enough to prove the 
point. But it is customary for a scientist to provide more data.


They could have done this back then, and they darn well can do it now. 
What I outlined here is exactly what I proposed to do -- to augment & 
confirm their instruments with conventional, old-fashioned manual 
techniques, circa 1970.  I spelled it out in more detail than I have 
here. Rossi said he did not want me to do this. He invited Krivit 
instead, and he showed him a set of procedures that are interesting, 
educational, and that an astute observer might learn a lot from. But 
these procedures prove nothing, for reasons I spelled out when Rossi 
described them to me.


The quick test that Rossi did for Krivit does have a legitimate use. If 
you already know the machine is real, and it works, that test is a 
convenient way to check how it is performing today, or with a new 
configuration. It is a way to do a quick experimental iteration. I 
expect this is why Rossi does it. It is similar to the way a programmer 
who is debugging a large program runs a quick utility to simulate a 
situation and force an intermediate program state, rather than running 
the whole thing from the beginning. The programmer sets up a "fake" 
situation, skipping over many steps, because the goal is to test a 
subset of the whole, and the programmer knows that the overall program 
exists and works, so there is no need to prove it. An observer from 
outside will not be convinced the overall program works, but the 
programmer is not trying to prove that. She is trying to tackle a 
specific problem that day in the shortest, most convenient fashion she can.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Mark Iverson]

I know that all residential bldgs here in the US are NOT at water main 
pressure... all bldgs have a
regulator that drops the pressure below that in the main line under the street. 
 Whether that is the
case for industrial bldgs in Italy, I don't know, but I would also think that 
one would have to use
regulators on just about every tap off of the main line in order to maintain a 
relatively stable
pressure in the main line when everyone on the street turns on their sprinklers.

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high


Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
 

If there's something that's not reasonable about it, it's the value:  1...
Remarkable
coincidence, if that's actually an exact 1, as in 1.00.



I believe they opened the tap and watched the flow meter needle, and when it 
reached 1 they stopped.
That's how I would do it. It isn't an exact value. Water pressure in a large 
city in a commercial
building is usually stable and the flow rate will not fluctuate much over 18 
hours.


 [snip] 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Time for a new poll?

[Michele Comitini]

Alan,

What about something like "Do e-cat's people know how to make correct
experiments ? "


mic
Il giorno 04/ago/2011 21:15, "Alan J Fletcher"  ha scritto:

Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Michele Comitini]

If I remember well for industrial  applications when you make a contract for
water supply, in much of Italy, you can be provided with 20 m3/h without
special request.   That is 2/3600 l/s.  Rossi's facility may have that
kind of big pipe from the public aqueduct.

mic
Il giorno 04/ago/2011 23:14, "Jed Rothwell"  ha
scritto:
> Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
>
>
>> If there's something that's not reasonable about it, it's the value:
>> 1... Remarkable coincidence, if that's actually an exact 1, as in 1.00.
>>
>
> I believe they opened the tap and watched the flow meter needle, and when
it
> reached 1 they stopped. That's how I would do it. It isn't an exact value.
> Water pressure in a large city in a commercial building is usually stable
> and the flow rate will not fluctuate much over 18 hours.
>
> They told me the rate was "3000 L/h" which is 833 ml/s, not quite a liter.
> These are approximations, as anyone can see. Even if they are wrong by a
> factor of 10 the excess heat is still tremendous. It is still far more
than
> most cold fusion devices of this size produce. So I wouldn't worry about
it,
> and I don't see why the exact numbers make a damn bit of difference. All
of
> these arguments that it might be far wrong are:
>
> 1. Preposterous nonsense. There is no chance it off by more than 20%.
>
> 2. Totally unimportant. Who cares whether it is 1.6 kW or 16 kW?!? It
makes
> no practical difference. It is like arguing whether Orville Wright flew
100
> feet high or 200 feet high on September 17, 1908. There is absolutely no
> doubt he flew that day (look it up; you'll see), and it was high enough to
> negate the ground-effect, so it was definitely flying.
>
> Assume for the sake of argument it is 1.6 kW instead of ~16 kW. Going from
> 1.6 kW with a device of this size up to 16 kW or 200 kW is "only a matter
> of engineering." There are probably thousands of industrial corporate
> engineering teams that could do that. There is no doubt it can be
> done. Questioning that is a lot like saying: "Okay maybe Mr. Wright
> *can*reach 100 feet, but he'll never get up to 200 feet!"
>
>
> By the way, I sent them yet another message asking for more info, QUOTE:
>
> What kind of flowmeter did you use? What was the make and model?
>
> What was the inlet water temperature? You told NyTecnik it was 20°C, and
you
> told me it was 15°C.
>
> Did you record the temperature with a computer? If so, please send the
data
> or a graph. If not, did you keep a lab notebook and write down the
> temperatures periodically?
>
> In NyTeknik Levi reported that there was a large temperature excursion, up
> to 40°C. When did this occur, and how many minutes did it continue?
>
>
> If I get a response I will update the LENR-CANR.org news item.
>
> - Jed

Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> If there's something that's not reasonable about it, it's the value:
> 1...Remarkable coincidence, if that's actually an exact 1, as in 1.00.
>

I believe they opened the tap and watched the flow meter needle, and when it
reached 1 they stopped. That's how I would do it. It isn't an exact value.
Water pressure in a large city in a commercial building is usually stable
and the flow rate will not fluctuate much over 18 hours.

They told me the rate was "3000 L/h" which is 833 ml/s, not quite a liter.
These are approximations, as anyone can see. Even if they are wrong by a
factor of 10 the excess heat is still tremendous. It is still far more than
most cold fusion devices of this size produce. So I wouldn't worry about it,
and I don't see why the exact numbers make a damn bit of difference. All of
these arguments that it might be far wrong are:

1. Preposterous nonsense. There is no chance it off by more than 20%.

2. Totally unimportant. Who cares whether it is 1.6 kW or 16 kW?!? It makes
no practical difference. It is like arguing whether Orville Wright flew 100
feet high or 200 feet high on September 17, 1908. There is absolutely no
doubt he flew that day (look it up; you'll see), and it was high enough to
negate the ground-effect, so it was definitely flying.

Assume for the sake of argument it is 1.6 kW instead of ~16 kW. Going from
1.6 kW with a device of this size up to 16 kW or  200 kW is "only a matter
of engineering." There are probably thousands of industrial corporate
engineering teams that could do that. There is no doubt it can be
done. Questioning that is a lot like saying: "Okay maybe Mr. Wright
*can*reach 100 feet, but he'll never get up to 200 feet!"


By the way, I sent them yet another message asking for more info, QUOTE:

What kind of flowmeter did you use? What was the make and model?

What was the inlet water temperature? You told NyTecnik it was 20°C, and you
told me it was 15°C.

Did you record the temperature with a computer? If so, please send the data
or a graph. If not, did you keep a lab notebook and write down the
temperatures periodically?

In NyTeknik Levi reported that there was a large temperature excursion, up
to 40°C. When did this occur, and how many minutes did it continue?


If I get a response I will update the LENR-CANR.org news item.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-08-04 04:24 PM, Peter Gluck wrote:
But Cousin, cold water has a greater viscosity! It is excatky the 
opposite!


Arrgh -- that's totally irrelevant.  The (viscous) cold water flows into 
the water heater instead of the tub, the heater acts as a flow reduction 
device, and from there the hot water runs up and into the tub.  Net 
effect is that hot water flows more slowly than cold, or at any rate 
that's what I typically see -- Jed's observation is totally reasonable 
and consistent with everyday experience.


Why are you picking at this nit?  1 l/s is a perfectly reasonable flow 
rate for setting the taps wide open.


If there's something that's not reasonable about it, it's the value:  
1...Remarkable coincidence, if that's actually an exact 1, as in 
1.00.  You might expect it to be 0.63, or 1.32, or 2.1, or 0.4, or some 
such, rather than that most round of all numbers, "1".  OTOH if it's not 
an *exact* "one" but is, rather, a common garden variety value of 1, 
with 1 significant digit, then the "true" value could be anywhere from 
0.5 to 1.5 l/s and it's not so surprising that the flow rate result came 
out to "1".


But that would throw a substantial uncertainty into the actual power 
generated.



Jeeze, man,


On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


Peter Gluck mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Have you measured the volume of your bathtube and seen in how
may seconds it is filled?. 



Yes. It is an Americh, Beverly 2020 model ("Japanese inspired"):


http://www.americh.com/pd3.php?s_product_model=Beverly&s_product_shape=Square&product_id=40



The specifications refer to "Whirlpool Operating Gallons = 68
 (Liters = 257)" which is to say the level at which the whirlpool
sensors are submerged. It takes 5 or 6 minutes to fill to this
level. I use a kitchen timer to do this every day. That's ~11 to
~13.6 gpm.

That's with hot water. I think it fills faster with cold water.

- Jed




--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

But Cousin, cold water has a greater viscosity! It is excatky the opposite!


Ah, but the cold water comes directly from the water mains a short distance
away whereas the hot water goes through the hot water heater at the other
side of the house, past the expansion tank, up, around and down to get to
the tub. Also, by the time the tub fills up, the water coming from the
50-gallon hot water tank is at tap water temperature; all of the water has
been replaced with incoming water.

(I have spent a lot time in the crawl space under the house dealing with
this plumbing so I recall in detail where things go.)

First principles are not always a reliable guide to what happens in the real
world.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Peter Gluck]

But Cousin, cold water has a greater viscosity! It is excatky the opposite!

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Have you measured the volume of your bathtube and seen in how may seconds
>> it is filled?.
>
>
> Yes. It is an Americh, Beverly 2020 model ("Japanese inspired"):
>
>
> http://www.americh.com/pd3.php?s_product_model=Beverly&s_product_shape=Square&product_id=40
>
> The specifications refer to "Whirlpool Operating Gallons = 68  (Liters =
> 257)" which is to say the level at which the whirlpool sensors are
> submerged. It takes 5 or 6 minutes to fill to this level. I use a kitchen
> timer to do this every day. That's ~11 to ~13.6 gpm.
>
> That's with hot water. I think it fills faster with cold water.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Have you measured the volume of your bathtube and seen in how may seconds it
> is filled?.


Yes. It is an Americh, Beverly 2020 model ("Japanese inspired"):

http://www.americh.com/pd3.php?s_product_model=Beverly&s_product_shape=Square&product_id=40

The specifications refer to "Whirlpool Operating Gallons = 68  (Liters =
257)" which is to say the level at which the whirlpool sensors are
submerged. It takes 5 or 6 minutes to fill to this level. I use a kitchen
timer to do this every day. That's ~11 to ~13.6 gpm.

That's with hot water. I think it fills faster with cold water.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Peter Gluck]

Have you measured the volume of your bathtube and seen in how may seconds it
is filled?. In my house I can fill a vessel of 10 liters in some 55 seconds
not 10.
Those flowmeters are for the main water connection.
What's their nominal diameter?- compare it please to the connection to the
E-cat
Have you calculated the speed of water flowing through the E-cat? Or in the
connection pipe?
Something is not OK here
Peter

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Some people have commented that a flow rate of 1 L/s is rather high, or
> that you might not be able to achieve it, or that it might be difficult to
> meter. These comments are incorrect. I have a large bathtub with an
> unimpeded faucet close to the house water main that fills this fast. (I mean
> there is no filter inside it, to catch pebbles and whatnot.) In a commercial
> real estate building the water main is large and can easily flow this fast.
>
> 1 L/s = 60 L/min = 15 gallons per minute (GPM). Here is a typical flow
> meter for a house, building or submeter application (an apartment or or
> single boiler):
>
> http://assuredautomation.com/WM/
>
> This kind of meter costs $50 to $100. As you see, they have models ranging
> from 20 gpm to 160 gpm. This shows the instantaneous flow rate and it
> records total consumption on an odometer, which goes up to 10 million
> gallons.
>
> Billions of meters like this are in use worldwide. They are extremely
> reliable. So it is not difficult or unusual to measure flow rates in this
> range.
>
>
>
> As I mentioned, 1 L/s was a little high for a 16 kW reactor, but it was the
> right choice for the 130 kW excursion. Perhaps that means Rossi triggered
> that excursion deliberately, just to show how hot this reactor can get.
>
> I would aim for a high temperature between 30°C and 40°C. Calorimetric
> precision starts to degrade above that.
>
> As far as I know, most hot water heaters for houses and apartments do not
> go above 45°C. I would not recommend such high temperatures. Japanese baths
> are sometimes that hot. They usually have stand-alone, in-bath heaters. The
> same water is used by different family members. They wash outside the tub.
> So it is re-heated between baths. Many Japanese tubs are fed directly by
> solar heaters which get quite hot, even by 8 am in summer. (Too hot for me
> to shower with.) They can be dangerous.
>
> Water or hot beverages above 60°C can cause serious injuries in 5 or 10
> seconds of exposure. 80°C is a lot worse. The famous McDonalds hot coffee
> lawsuit was caused by coffee held at 88°C, which nearly killed the victim,
> and caused extensive permanent injuries and a huge hospital bill which
> McDonalds refused to pay. Keeping or selling coffee at this temperature is
> insane. People at home generally serve coffee at around 60°C. See:
>
> http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
>
> QUOTE:
>
> "Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
> burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees (82°C), will cause a full
> thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed
> that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees (68°C), the extent of
> the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially."
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:
> As far as "retribution" is concerned, perhaps getting
> even would entail nothing more satisfying than generating a well
> publicized list of all the meticulous things nay-sayers had
> proclaimed.

Some of these people are Italian, maybe Sicilian.  'Nuff said.

T

[Vo]:A flow rate of 1 L/s is not unusual or particularly high

[Jed Rothwell]

Some people have commented that a flow rate of 1 L/s is rather high, or that
you might not be able to achieve it, or that it might be difficult to meter.
These comments are incorrect. I have a large bathtub with an unimpeded
faucet close to the house water main that fills this fast. (I mean there is
no filter inside it, to catch pebbles and whatnot.) In a commercial real
estate building the water main is large and can easily flow this fast.

1 L/s = 60 L/min = 15 gallons per minute (GPM). Here is a typical flow meter
for a house, building or submeter application (an apartment or or single
boiler):

http://assuredautomation.com/WM/

This kind of meter costs $50 to $100. As you see, they have models ranging
from 20 gpm to 160 gpm. This shows the instantaneous flow rate and it
records total consumption on an odometer, which goes up to 10 million
gallons.

Billions of meters like this are in use worldwide. They are extremely
reliable. So it is not difficult or unusual to measure flow rates in this
range.



As I mentioned, 1 L/s was a little high for a 16 kW reactor, but it was the
right choice for the 130 kW excursion. Perhaps that means Rossi triggered
that excursion deliberately, just to show how hot this reactor can get.

I would aim for a high temperature between 30°C and 40°C. Calorimetric
precision starts to degrade above that.

As far as I know, most hot water heaters for houses and apartments do not go
above 45°C. I would not recommend such high temperatures. Japanese baths are
sometimes that hot. They usually have stand-alone, in-bath heaters. The same
water is used by different family members. They wash outside the tub. So it
is re-heated between baths. Many Japanese tubs are fed directly by solar
heaters which get quite hot, even by 8 am in summer. (Too hot for me to
shower with.) They can be dangerous.

Water or hot beverages above 60°C can cause serious injuries in 5 or 10
seconds of exposure. 80°C is a lot worse. The famous McDonalds hot coffee
lawsuit was caused by coffee held at 88°C, which nearly killed the victim,
and caused extensive permanent injuries and a huge hospital bill which
McDonalds refused to pay. Keeping or selling coffee at this temperature is
insane. People at home generally serve coffee at around 60°C. See:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

QUOTE:

"Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees (82°C), will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed
that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees (68°C), the extent of
the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially."

- Jed

[Vo]:Time for a new poll?

[Alan J Fletcher]

I previously asked whether steam is a problem :

http://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsPasswordPage.aspx?ID=L26QG6QVBZQL


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49076.html
I'm thinking of setting up a new poll. 
a) Old question, again :  Is the eCat steam quality a problem?

Definitely a
problem 33 41%
Probably a
problem   
7  9%
Don't know/ don't care    7 
9% 
Probably not a problem   24 30%
Definitely not a problem 10 12%
b) New question : Do you now think the eCat is Real or
Fake?
Definitely Fake
Probably Fake
Don't Know/Don't Care
Probably Real
Definitely Real
Any other questions?  (I don't want to make it too
complicated).
I'll either set up BOTH a vortex and non-vortex version, OR I'll set up
separate questions.

Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:38 PM 8/3/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
 wrote:


> I came to a conclusion of fraud, defined as wilful
> deception, after seeing a lot of evidence for it, which I was always
> explaining away, as did others.

If I thought there could be the slightest possibility that Rossi and
Defkalion were not committing fraud, I think I'd keep my mouth shut.


Not I. If it's even possible that it's fraud, I'd warn my friends, 
and I'd do so publically, providing the evidence. I warned about the 
possibility of fraud back in February, because it was possible (and 
it will remain possible until there are fully idependent validations).


What flipped was that I now conclude that fraud is *probable.* 
Therefore I state it that way. Rossi is a public figure now, and 
there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he'd prevail on a libel claim.


I don't intend to damage him by this claim, and an intention of 
damage is essential to actionable libel, anyway.



After all, this is one of the definitive forums for cold fusion; and,
if you are wrong and the company is worth billions in a few years,
they might seek damages if not retribution for those who judged poorly
and defamed their name.

Just a little advice.


Their lawyer would advise them differently. I don't have a lawyer, 
can't afford one. I'm essentially judgment-proof, they could stand in 
line behind the IRS if they want to. They wouldn't see any money.


No, what I have at stake is my own reputation. That cuts both ways. 

Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

No boiler is designed to create very wet steam as a possibility. Now, 
the 18-hour test doesn't involve steam. That was the point. But no 
boiler will be tested with water at a liter per second!


That is incorrect. A large boiler will be tested at 1 L per second or 
more. Rossi's upcoming 1 MW test will have to employ even higher flow 
rates. This rate was perhaps a little high for a 16 kW reactor, because 
it meant the temperature difference was only ~5°C. I think a difference 
of 10°C to 15°C would be better. However, 1 L/s turned out to be a wise 
choice. Levi reported in NyTeknik that power rose to ~130 kW for a 
while, with the outlet temperature reaching 40°C. At a lower flow rate 
this might have caused a serious accident.



And I doubt that a boiler would be tested with the thermometer place 
in the boiler itself, unless the design had been proven to produce 
even temperatures within the boiler.


The thermometers were not placed in the Rossi boiler itself. They were 
placed just outside it, which is where they are placed in a regular 
boiler test, in the boiler rooms I have seen. They usually use 
bimetallic dial thermometers. At these temperature differences and flow 
rates there is no way heat might have wicked directly to the temperature 
sensors.



Boiler test engineers are working with long-proven designs that have 
known operating characteristics.


That has no bearing on calorimetry. When the same stable temperatures 
and flow rates are observed with a mysterious black box, you can be 
certain that box is producing heat at the same rate as a conventional 
boiler. The laws of physics are uniform.



Steam systems typically recycle the water, it's recirculated, and 
there is no input water . . .


All industrial boilers produce hot water or process steam which is 
consumed by the industrial process. There would be no point to 
circulating the steam as such. Perhaps if it were used for space heating 
you might do that. It may be condensed and reused, but that would be no 
different from using any other feedwater source. Except that it tends to 
be filthy, in my experience.



. . . beyond a small amount to replace losses, typically from venting 
as needed. My own boiler does not automatically feed water, you have 
to press a button, to restore level as indicated on a water level glass.


This must refer to a space heating application.


You would *never* want overflow, i.e, water flowing in faster than is 
being boiled, except transiently to restore the level.


This has no bearing on the 18-hour flowing water test. That was a test 
of a water heat. Of course the water overflows with a hot water heater. 
It is used up, in the bath, washing machine or whatever the water is 
used for.



Of course you can measure heat with calorimetry, but there are several 
problems with the 18-hour test.


No, there are not. It was the same as any boiler test, and there are no 
problems with such tests. The problems discussed here are imaginary. The 
only problem is that it was not reported in quite enough detail. I asked 
them again to tell me the make and model of the flowmeter. If they 
provide this information I will update the LENR-CANR news section with 
this information.


I will grant, it would have been better for them to record time 
sequenced data with a computer or in a lab notebook, but a single value 
is acceptable.



In the end, it depends on the credibility of Rossi, because unless 
Rossi can be trusted not to manipulate the appearances, there is no test.


Of course it depends on them. Any experiment does. And it could be 
completely fake. This was a simple test, but they could easily dummy up 
a sophisticated fake test, complete with data and photos. Anyone can 
produce an impressive set of graphs with totally fake calorimetric data 
from a nonexistent test. I have done that using the random number 
generator in a spreadsheet. (I did it to show a researcher what kind of 
graph I thought would be helpful in an upcoming study.)




Rossi has shown great skill at creating appearances.


On the contrary, Rossi would make the world's worst con-man. He has 
shown incredible skill at taking what should be self-evident, 
unquestionably believable test data and making it seem suspicious. It is 
as if he goes out of his way to make himself seem like an inept crook. I 
do not think he does this deliberately, as Abd and others have 
speculated. Note that this speculation contradicts the message I am 
responding to here. Which is it? Is Rossi good at making convincing 
data? Or is he trying to throw people off his trail by making the whole 
thing look fake? I say: neither. He just happens to be bad at doing 
demonstrations.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Except that the data recorded in a boiler test is EXACTLY what you see
> here, for crying out loud!
>

To be more specific, I mean that they record only one value for temperature
and one for the flow, even though these values probably fluctuated
measurably over the course of the test.

The boiler test might call for the inspector to record temperature and flow
every minute for 10 minutes. Or it might demand a graph of automatically
recorded data, or a high/low value. It does not; it asks only for a single
value for each parameter. This reduces accuracy somewhat.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Michele Comitini]

I cannot find where Galantini declared that he used the RH reading on the
datalogger.  Did he declare that?

Maybe  he used the probe because it measures T in the correct range up to
150°C.  If he knew the pressure at the point where the probe was then with
steam tables or Mollier diagram the quality of steam is derived.
Why that probe with RH sensor then? Maybe it just comes bundled with the
datalogger.

The Essen report points to a probe for temperature only.  Did they use a
different way to find steam quality?

mic

Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:21 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This is a science forum, not a courtroom.


Yes.

 Frankly, it is damned insulting to suggest that I would lie about 
these numbers, or that Lewan and are incapable of transcribing tape 
recorded conversations (what he did), copying numbers out of 
e-mail, or double-checking figures. If you don't want to believe 
Levi that's fine but don't blame us for reporting what he and the other said.


Jed, nobody said or suggested that you lied. I have never seen you 
lie, in the years we have corresponded and discussed issues. Nobody 
blamed you for reporting what you heard or read. 

Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:24 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Boiler test reports are a set of variables found by long experience 
to indicate the operating health of a boiler. There is no way to 
compare this report with a boiler test.



Except that the data recorded in a boiler test is EXACTLY what you 
see here, for crying out loud!


Do you think heat from cold fusion works differently from the heat 
from a gas fired or electrical water heater? You can't measure it 
with calorimetry?



No boiler is designed to create very wet steam as a possibility. Now, 
the 18-hour test doesn't involve steam. That was the point. But no 
boiler will be tested with water at a liter per second! And I doubt 
that a boiler would be tested with the thermometer place in the 
boiler itself, unless the design had been proven to produce even 
temperatures within the boiler.


Boiler test engineers are working with long-proven designs that have 
known operating characteristics. Steam systems typically recycle the 
water, it's recirculated, and there is no input water, beyond a small 
amount to replace losses, typically from venting as needed. My own 
boiler does not automatically feed water, you have to press a button, 
to restore level as indicated on a water level glass.


You would *never* want overflow, i.e, water flowing in faster than is 
being boiled, except transiently to restore the level. My guess is 
that they don't do this automatically with my boiler because if 
somehow it stuck on, it could make a big problem! You have to hold 
the button down as the water feeds. It's set up to be fail-safe.


Of course you can measure heat with calorimetry, but there are 
several problems with the 18-hour test. In the end, it depends on the 
credibility of Rossi, because unless Rossi can be trusted not to 
manipulate the appearances, there is no test. Rossi has shown great 
skill at creating appearances. They called it "magic" in the RAI TV 
report. That was accurate.


Rossi has set up conditions whereby any definitive demo *must* 
exclude his ability to manipulate it. He could watch, remote from the 
device, to ensure that nobody opens the thing up. That's about it.

Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:30 PM 8/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Let me summarize:


I will, too.



If your best argument


"Your" is unspecified. Whose best argument?

 against this data is the assertion that Lewan and I are incapable 
of transcribing numbers correctly,


That's certainly not my argument. Period.

 or that Levi and the others did not bother to check the published 
report in NyTekNik to be sure the numbers are right, you have lost this debate.


Please stop insulting me with this ridiculous assertion.


What assertion? You did not quote it. I think this must have been 
based on my noting the difference between the numbers. There is a 
discrepancy, which might have many different origins. That's all. 
This actually wasn't important, it was dicta, of minor interest only 
and certainly was not my "best argument."


Jed, it's like your defense of Rossi against charges *you implied* 
from Krivit showing the plumber's toolbox. Krivit made no claim that 
those tools were any kind of suspicious thing. Krivit's just a 
reporter, some of the time. Those photos were "of interest," not 
because they prove or demonstrate anything about the reality of the 
E-cat, except to show there is apparently a real plumber working for 
Rossi, which I find, indeed, interesting. Just irrelevant to judging 
the claims.


To me, it makes Rossi a *tiny bit* more credible! He's paying a 
plumber, I assume. Or maybe the guy is a volunteer. Frankly, I'm glad 
to see that Rossi has some help!


Jed, you are now taking every comment on the E-cat, it seems, and 
interpreting it as pro or con. And you are attacking everything you 
see as con. Here, you took a simple noting of a discrepancy as if it 
were a criticism, which it was not. It was just a fact.


You've become attached to an outcome here. That's what's visible. I 
highly recommend dropping it. There is a pie flying through the air, 
very likely to hit Rossi in the face. I suggest ducking. ASAP.


Stick with what you *know.* Rossi has set up a situation where many 
false appearances have been created. He's showing amazing skill at 
that. We can all be fooled for a time by such a person. I certainly 
was. I really thought this was likely genuine, at least in round 
outline (like you!). Yes, there were some obvious problems, but Rossi 
blah blah blah. Excuses blah blah blah. Justifications blah blah blah.


When I was cautioning the CMNS community in February or so, as I 
recall, it was only against a theoretical possibility, that Rossi 
would fail to deliver in October, which could easily happen even if 
his work has a solid basis. That was a foolish promise, it's obvious, 
but it was not necessary for CMNS researchers to stick their faces 
where the pie would hit them, too. All they needed was normal, 
rational, ordinary skepticism, to maintain scientific reserve. To 
behave like the real scientists that most of them are.


You know, if the general scientific community had stuck to that in 
1989 et seq, we might be far ahead. It was pseudoskepticism rampant 
that did so much damage. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.


It's looking to me like, in some cases at least, I'm going to be 
stuck with "I told you so." I hope I'm wrong. Seriously, because the 
world needs energy, it's important. But wishes and hopes are neither 
horses nor horse-power. 

Re: [Vo]:Millennium Falcon or Odd Sea Floor Formation

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:25 PM 8/3/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Interesting note in the article:

The shape was found at the bottom of the Gulf of Bothnia during a 
search for a sunken wreck which contained several cases of champagne.


Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through to get a few cases 
of champagne.


Depends on the vintage, doesn't it?

yeah, this "flying saucer" speculation takes the cake. Stuff like 
this gives real UFO research, if there is such a thing, a bad name.


"I saw something strange in the sky."

"Wow! A UFO! Do you think it came from within the solar system or outside it?"

(Of course it's a UFO. "Unidentified flying object," or, at least, 
the appearance of one.) 

Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Terry:

>> I came to a conclusion of fraud, defined as wilful
>> deception, after seeing a lot of evidence for it, which I was always
>> explaining away, as did others.
>
> If I thought there could be the slightest possibility that Rossi and
> Defkalion were not committing fraud, I think I'd keep my mouth shut.
> After all, this is one of the definitive forums for cold fusion; and,
> if you are wrong and the company is worth billions in a few years,
> they might seek damages if not retribution for those who judged poorly
> and defamed their name.
>
> Just a little advice.

Seems to me that if it turns out Defkalion never committed fraud, why
would they care what Abd suspected, or any critic might have said for
that matter. As far as "retribution" is concerned, perhaps getting
even would entail nothing more satisfying than generating a well
publicized list of all the meticulous things nay-sayers had
proclaimed. Leave it at that. "Punishment" would entail nothing more
disgraceful than having their skeptical arguments prominently
plastered as additional advertisement fodder.

"They said it couldn't be done... that it was a fraud!" and off to the
races they go.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Mark Iverson]

Mattia wrote:
"There is NO AIR inside e-cat. Only vapor mixture.
The probe is designed ONLY for measurements in AIR."

I'm afraid that is a common misconception which was mentioned on this list 
shortly after the January
demo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity

"Misconception

Often the notion of air holding water vapor is presented to describe the 
concept of relative
humidity. This, however, is a misconception. Air is a mixture of gases 
(nitrogen, oxygen, argon,
water vapor, and other gases) and as such the constituents of the mixture 
simply act as a
transporter of water vapor but are not a holder of it.

Humidity is wholly understood in terms of the physical properties of water and 
thus is unrelated to
the concept of air holding water.[3][4] In fact, an air-less volume can contain 
water vapor and
therefore the humidity of this volume can be readily determined.

The misconception that air holds water is likely the result of the use of the 
word saturation, which
is often misused in descriptions of relative humidity. In the present context 
the word saturation
refers to the state of water vapor,[5] not the solubility of one material in 
another."

NOTE the statement:
"In fact, an air-less volume can contain water vapor and therefore the humidity 
of this volume can
be readily determined."

And secondly, liquid water HAS gases dissolved in it... Have you ever heard of 
a "dissolved oxygen
meter"?  I have one.  What oxygen are fish 'breathing' in water? It isn't the 
oxygen in the H2O
molecules.

So the vapor in the E-Cat has other gases in it (most likely at much lower 
concentration than air),
but even that is irrelevent to this issue.  You do not need 'AIR' to be present 
to measure RH.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Mattia Rizzi [mailto:mattia.ri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini 
instrument is useless

>
RH is simply the amount of water vapor that CAN exist in a given volume of
*air* at a given pressure
and temperature

There is NO AIR inside e-cat. Only vapor mixture.
The probe is designed ONLY for measurements in AIR.


<>

Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax:

Now, if you assessed the probability at 70%, rationally you would bet 40
euros against a lesser amount from me. Suppose my bet is X euros. Forget the
charity thing, it complicates it.


It is impossible to assess probabilities for one time events,


Nonsense.

At the end of Dark Star one of the astronauts stands on a piece of 
debris and attempts to surf down to the surface of the planet.


If he does everything just right, and if he's really lucky, it's 
conceivable that he could survive.


Would you say it's really impossible to say anything about the 
*probability* of that occuring?


Yet, it's a one-time event.

The mistake you are making is thinking that because an event is 
apparently different in some way from other events, you can't lump them 
together when figuring expected returns.  If you really only ever did 
one thing in your life, the expected return on that thing would have 
little meaning, but that's not the case.

[Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Mattia Rizzi]

RH is simply the amount of water vapor that CAN exist in a given volume of 
*air* at a given pressure

and temperature

There is NO AIR inside e-cat. Only vapor mixture.
The probe is designed ONLY for measurements in AIR.

-Messaggio originale- 
From: Mark Iverson

Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that 
galantini instrument is useless


Was RH measurement 'flawed'?

So long as the probe is rated to operate above 100°C, it should provide a 
valid RH reading, PROVIDED

you let the probe come up to the same temperature as the vapor.

"with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C"

So the probe can work up to 550°C.

When a cold probe is put into the steam vapor (wherever that is), there will 
be some condensation on
the RH sensor which will cause it to either go to 100% or 0%.  I DID a test 
with a polymer
capacitive RH sensor on the stove and it went to 0% when water began to 
condense on the sensor.  If
the sensor is left in the vapor long enough so that its temperature comes up 
to that of the vapor,
then any initial condensation on the RH sensor will eventually vaporize and 
you will then read the

proper RH.

RH is simply the amount of water vapor that CAN exist in a given volume of 
air at a given pressure
and temperature; it's percent saturation based on the vapor pressure.  RH 
does not magically top out
at 100°C!  If you had a probe that was rated for 200°C, then it should be 
able to give you a RH
reading at that temperature... Provided you leave it in the steam long 
enough so the RH sensor comes

up to the steam temperature.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Mattia Rizzi [mailto:mattia.ri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini 
instrument is useless


Delta ohm's engineer say that the entalphy is calculated by the instrument, 
knwoing RH and

temperature of gas. This is in accordance with the manual of the instrument.
SInce RH measurement is flawed, all other derived measurements are flawed 
too.


-Messaggio originale-
From: Michele Comitini
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini 
instrument is useless


Thanks Mattia,

"Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono 
calcolate dai diagrammi di

Mollier"
"

"The derived quantities that the tool allows you to view are calculated from 
Mollier diagrams"



http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html

How did Galantini use the probe to meausure enthalpy?  Reading from the 
datalogger or using a
Mollier diagram knowing temperature and pressure? In the latter he used only 
the temperature reading
and ignored the other quantities on the display and "derived" the quantity 
by hand (or by a program

on the pc)?

Does anyone know if there is a  reference in the reports of the tests to 
understand how did they

read the instrument?

I find this in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf:

"The system to measure
the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with a 
probe guaranteed to resist

up to 550°C"

That is another type of datalogger and probe, but functionality seems the 
same as deltaohm's.
Reading of RH on the screen of the datalogger would not make sense.  So did 
they calculate the wet
fraction afterwards or did they have it shown on the pc? Else  they read the 
number on the little

LCD display?? that would be at least bogus

mic

Il 04 agosto 2011 11:48, Mattia Rizzi  ha scritto:

Hello.
Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and
temperature, with Mollier diagrams
2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in
100% vapor mixture
3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water
suspended, the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely
give random numbers


--- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore

Gentile dottor De Leonardis

Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.

""
Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello
strumento, questo e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della
umidita' presente nell'aria.
Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di
acqua liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente
quasi privo di aria .
Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la
umidita'
relativa nell'aria e non altro.
Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici
molto precisi.
Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del g

Re: [Vo]:18-hour test is no less detailed than a boiler test report

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Rich,

> -- being sincerely wrong is a really profound learning process.

Indeed it is. I don't know if Rossi is sincerely wrong about his eCats
or not. I don't know if "believers" of Rossi's claims are also
sincerely wrong about their assessments of the claims either. But the
same thing can be levied against Rossi's critics.

Just keep in mind that being sincerely right about one's personal
convictions is no different than later learning that one was sincerely
wrong. The key point being: "sincerely". I should know.

As previously stated, I've had to admit to myself that I really know
whose right and who is wrong. Admitting the fact that "I don't know"
strikes me as a far more sincere confession to make under current
circumstances.

Hopefully we will all learn valuable lessons -- in all due course.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Mark Iverson]

Was RH measurement 'flawed'?

So long as the probe is rated to operate above 100°C, it should provide a valid 
RH reading, PROVIDED
you let the probe come up to the same temperature as the vapor.

"with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C"

So the probe can work up to 550°C.

When a cold probe is put into the steam vapor (wherever that is), there will be 
some condensation on
the RH sensor which will cause it to either go to 100% or 0%.  I DID a test 
with a polymer
capacitive RH sensor on the stove and it went to 0% when water began to 
condense on the sensor.  If
the sensor is left in the vapor long enough so that its temperature comes up to 
that of the vapor,
then any initial condensation on the RH sensor will eventually vaporize and you 
will then read the
proper RH.

RH is simply the amount of water vapor that CAN exist in a given volume of air 
at a given pressure
and temperature; it's percent saturation based on the vapor pressure.  RH does 
not magically top out
at 100°C!  If you had a probe that was rated for 200°C, then it should be able 
to give you a RH
reading at that temperature... Provided you leave it in the steam long enough 
so the RH sensor comes
up to the steam temperature. 

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Mattia Rizzi [mailto:mattia.ri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini 
instrument is useless

Delta ohm's engineer say that the entalphy is calculated by the instrument, 
knwoing RH and
temperature of gas. This is in accordance with the manual of the instrument.
SInce RH measurement is flawed, all other derived measurements are flawed too.

-Messaggio originale-
From: Michele Comitini
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini 
instrument is useless

Thanks Mattia,

"Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono calcolate 
dai diagrammi di
Mollier"
"

"The derived quantities that the tool allows you to view are calculated from 
Mollier diagrams"


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html

How did Galantini use the probe to meausure enthalpy?  Reading from the 
datalogger or using a
Mollier diagram knowing temperature and pressure? In the latter he used only 
the temperature reading
and ignored the other quantities on the display and "derived" the quantity by 
hand (or by a program
on the pc)?

Does anyone know if there is a  reference in the reports of the tests to 
understand how did they
read the instrument?

I find this in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf:

"The system to measure
the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe 
guaranteed to resist
up to 550°C"

That is another type of datalogger and probe, but functionality seems the same 
as deltaohm's.
Reading of RH on the screen of the datalogger would not make sense.  So did 
they calculate the wet
fraction afterwards or did they have it shown on the pc? Else  they read the 
number on the little
LCD display?? that would be at least bogus

mic

Il 04 agosto 2011 11:48, Mattia Rizzi  ha scritto:
> Hello.
> Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
> 1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and 
> temperature, with Mollier diagrams
> 2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in 
> 100% vapor mixture
> 3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water 
> suspended, the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely 
> give random numbers
>
>
> --- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
> Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
> Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
> A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
> Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore
>
> Gentile dottor De Leonardis
>
> Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.
>
> ""
> Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello 
> strumento, questo e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della 
> umidita' presente nell'aria.
> Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di 
> acqua liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente 
> quasi privo di aria .
> Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la 
> umidita'
> relativa nell'aria e non altro.
> Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono 
> calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici 
> molto precisi.
> Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del gas in esame si 
> possono derivare le quantita' elencate nel nostro manuale, e 
> precisamente:
> Umidita' Assoluta (in g acqua su mcubo gas) Rapporto di mescolanza ( g 
> acqua su kg gas) Punto di rugiada (in gradi centigradi) Entalpia 
> (kJoule/Kg) Si puo' anche calcolare la equivalente Temperatura di 
> bulbo umido (gradi
> centigradi) , secondo un algoritmo che approssima 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi wrote:

What claims? The pump that erogate 3 times much more water than the 
maximux rate wrote on the datasheet?


The pump was not used in the 18-hour test.



Or the “5kW steam” that look exaclty like a 600W steam?


You cannot judge steam quality by looking at the steam. In any case, 
there would be no steam at all with only 600 W of input, as Storms 
pointed out.


- Jed

[Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Mattia Rizzi]

>Regarding the RH meter -- that's irrelevant. The claims stand without it. 

What claims? The pump that erogate 3 times much more water than the maximux 
rate wrote on the datasheet? Or the “5kW steam” that look exaclty like a 600W 
steam?

>But I don't anything wrong with an instrument that works by CALCULATION.

The instrument MEASURE RH and temperature. Then, with a calculation, extract 
the entalpy, under some assumption (first: that RH measurement is valid).
Jed, i’m embrassed. What are your studies? You look like a fool.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini 
instrument is useless

Mattia Rizzi wrote:


  Jed Rothwell, it’s over.

So you admit the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed, and 4.2 joules 
still equal 1 calorie? Good. I am glad that you now agree that calorimetry 
works and Rossi's claims -- along with all the others in this field -- are 
valid.

It is about time.

Regarding the RH meter -- that's irrelevant. The claims stand without it. There 
is no chance anyone can produce steam with far less enthalpy than the textbook 
figures. But I don't anything wrong with an instrument that works by 
CALCULATION.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Jed Rothwell]

Mattia Rizzi wrote:


Jed Rothwell, it’s over.


So you admit the laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed, and 4.2 
joules still equal 1 calorie? Good. I am glad that you now agree that 
calorimetry works and Rossi's claims -- along with all the others in 
this field -- are valid.


It is about time.

Regarding the RH meter -- that's irrelevant. The claims stand without 
it. There is no chance anyone can produce steam with far less enthalpy 
than the textbook figures. But I don't anything wrong with an instrument 
that works by CALCULATION.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> Now, if you assessed the probability at 70%, rationally you would bet 40
> euros against a lesser amount from me. Suppose my bet is X euros. Forget the
> charity thing, it complicates it.
>

It is impossible to assess probabilities for one time events, such as
for the reality of Rossi's cold fusion. They are black swans and
probabilities associated to them are meaningless. But it is not
impossible to invest money on that one time event, because it does not
require rationality to justify human intuition.

By the way, it is true that people continuously does that mistake that
they are assessing probabilities for one time events. This can cause
lots of harm in financial sector, because they continuously
underestimate the power of black swans, and result is financial crisis
like in 2008. Therefore your "game theory" calculations are just
unscientific, and you really do not understand well game theory, if
you try to apply it here.


>
> However, my position, and you have to understand that I'm not willing to bet
> on "Rossi unreal," there are way to many unknowns, and I've never claimed
> that the E-cat is "unreal."

In this subject, even partial success for Rossi is greatest success
since invention of fire. Therefore there is only two possible
outcomes, either E-Cat is 100% real or 100% unreal. Nothing in
between. If you try to see such gray shades between, you are mistaken.
Here only black and white are possible outcomes.

> What I've been claiming is that Rossi has
> fraudulently exaggerated the tests (mostly by allowing others to make
> assumptions that favor him, and he obviously encouraged that), and that,
> further, he appears not to have solved the reliability problem -- assuming
> he has anything at all.

If you get 2 kilowatts of power from cold fusion experiment in every
10 000 demonstrations it is reliable enough to invest few teraeuros
for cold fusion research. I remind you that financial value of cold
fusion device that can produce net energy, is few gigadollars per
hour! Therefore if we have even slightest hint that there is any
anomalous nuclear fusion events at low temperature, ALL available
global resources would be diverted to cold fusion research. Because
global economy is depended on energy and it suffers chronic lack of
energy. With free or almost free energy, global economy could
quadruple in matter of few years.

Nuclear energy is so valuable, that even if we need some precious
metal to do the job, then we would go to asteroids and dig it from
there. People often forget how valuable energy is, because we are
surrounded by energy.


> So what I'd bet on would be that he fails to deliver
> by a certain deadline.
>
Natural deadline for scientific validation of E-Cat is the end of this year.


> He put himself in a position where he must complete development under the
> gun, and he claims to be working 18-hour days. He may well be! These are the
> conditions that lead me to expect he is likely to fail.

He cannot fail, because it takes just few weeks to build working 1MW
plant, if not just few days. What Rossi is doing is making it better,
i.e. doing research. Few weeks ago Rossi stated, that he started again
all over from the beginning, because he found more efficient solution.
There is no indications that he lags with the schedule. More
problematic is whether Defkalion is ready to start manufacturing at
November. If they are going to, they really should start heavy
investments for building a factory very soon.

> Rational bets (also called "investments")
> balance expected reward times probability of success with expected loss. In
> 1989 and the ensuing years, a lot of people and companies bet that cold
> fusion could be commercialized. They lost the bet, but that doesn't mean it
> was a foolish bet.

It was not rational bet, because there is no such thing as probability
for one-time-event.



> It's been said that perhaps he was just turning down the power because it
> had started to overheat. Here's the problem with that: Lewan had turned away
> to go look at the hose. Lewan's video shows no obvious steam coming from the
> hose. Then there is steam, much more. Lewan turns back to Rossi, who is
> seeing nonchalantly withdrawing his hand from the heat controls, gazing at
> the camera like there is absolutely nothing on his mind. I could imagine him
> whistling. Nothing going on here? Lewan doesn't ask him. That would be rude,
> eh? However, the sounds of boiling apparently stop.
>
> Lewan goes over and videos the input current. The same as before. It had
> only been a couple of minutes.

This kind of foolish speculation and accusation is outright insulting!
Mats checked steam several times during the 7 hours what he was there
present besides the working E-Cat. You are a fool that if you think
that 5 min video does capture it all!



> The whole point of Rossi,
> the reason why everyone got so excited, was the level of the claims and the
> implied reliabilit

RE: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Rizzi sez:

 

> Jed Rothwell, it’s over.

 

Back in the late 60s I recall an infamous week which I experienced back when I 
was still a freshman in high school. It happened during geometry class. I 
noticed that several students had suddenly started secretly brining in portable 
pocket radios with ear plugs. After asking around I eventually learned they 
were listening to a crucial baseball ball game, something like the World 
Series, or something like that. I dunno. I wasn't keeping track of baseball 
events all that much. All I knew was that it must have been a really big ball 
game, and some of the students wanted to listen in to actual play-by-play 
scenes. I thought it was a little rude of them, but what can I say. I was a 
nerd, and no one had ever picked me to play ball with them. In any case I 
concluded that if they were going to bring in pocket radios in order to 
secretly listen on a baseball game, in the middle of geometry class, I might as 
well be able to do the same. However, in my case, I wasn't interested in 
listening to baseball games. I was far more interested in listening to an 
Apollo launch. A launch was supposed to happen that morning. I remember 
bringing in my own pocket radio. I popped in my ear bud and promptly sat back 
to listen to launch events while appearing as if I was listening to the teacher 
giving geometry lessons. I did notice that there didn’t seem to be any more 
pocket radios in the class that morning. While listening in I recall a student 
in front of me turning around and looking at me, and my pocket radio. He seemed 
to have a rather tired, almost patronizing look on his face as he told me, 
"Steve, the ball game is over." I don't think he liked the answer I gave him.

 

With appropriate apologies to all baseball fans.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

www.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Andrea Selva]

2011/8/4 Michele Comitini 

> From Essen report we can expect that they used a pt100 probe:
>
>
> http://www.testo.co.uk/online/abaxx-?$part=PORTAL.GBR.ProductCategoryDesk.active-area.catalog.ProductDetail.details.probes
>
> works up to 550° C (the value reported by Essen)
>
> now to calculate the x (dryness factor) from a Mollier diagram what is
> missing is the pressure so the question is: how did they measure the
> pressure?
>
> mic
>
>
> Il 04 agosto 2011 13:21, Michele Comitini 
> ha scritto:
> > I hope Galantini uses T and P and T is correct.  Some of those probes
> > measure also P and that is correct too. Looking at a Mollier diag
> > you know the dryness.  If Galantini did not measure P in the outlet or
> > he used RH by the probe, well he has a problem!  or he knows something
> > we do not know...
> >
> > mic
> >
> >
> > Il 04 agosto 2011 12:56, Mattia Rizzi  ha
> scritto:
> >> Delta ohm's engineer say that the entalphy is calculated by the
> instrument,
> >> knwoing RH and temperature of gas. This is in accordance with the manual
> of
> >> the instrument.
> >> SInce RH measurement is flawed, all other derived measurements are
> flawed
> >> too.
> >>
> >> -Messaggio originale- From: Michele Comitini
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:35 PM
> >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that
> galantini
> >> instrument is useless
> >>
> >> Thanks Mattia,
> >>
> >> "Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
> >> calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier"
> >> "
> >>
> >> "The derived quantities that the tool allows you to view are
> >> calculated from Mollier diagrams"
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html
> >>
> >> How did Galantini use the probe to meausure enthalpy?  Reading from
> >> the datalogger or using a Mollier diagram knowing temperature
> >> and pressure? In the latter he used only the temperature reading and
> >> ignored the other quantities on the display and "derived" the quantity
> >> by hand (or by a program on the pc)?
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if there is a  reference in the reports of the tests
> >> to understand how did they read the instrument?
> >>
> >> I find this in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf:
> >>
> >> "The system to measure
> >> the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with
> >> a probe guaranteed to
> >> resist up to 550°C"
> >>
> >> That is another type of datalogger and probe, but functionality seems
> >> the same as deltaohm's.  Reading of RH on the screen of the datalogger
> >> would not make sense.  So did they calculate the wet fraction
> >> afterwards or did they have it shown on the pc? Else  they read the
> >> number on
> >> the little LCD display?? that would be at least bogus
> >>
> >> mic
> >>
> >> Il 04 agosto 2011 11:48, Mattia Rizzi  ha
> scritto:
> >>>
> >>> Hello.
> >>> Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
> >>> 1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and
> >>> temperature, with Mollier diagrams
> >>> 2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in
> 100%
> >>> vapor mixture
> >>> 3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water
> >>> suspended, the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely
> give
> >>> random numbers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
> >>> Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
> >>> Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
> >>> A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
> >>> Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore
> >>>
> >>> Gentile dottor De Leonardis
> >>>
> >>> Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.
> >>>
> >>> ""
> >>> Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello
> strumento,
> >>> questo e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della umidita' presente
> >>> nell'aria.
> >>> Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di
> acqua
> >>> liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente quasi privo
> di
> >>> aria .
> >>> Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la
> >>> umidita'
> >>> relativa nell'aria e non altro.
> >>> Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
> >>> calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici
> molto
> >>> precisi.
> >>> Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del gas in esame si
> >>> possono
> >>> derivare le quantita' elencate nel nostro manuale, e precisamente:
> >>> Umidita' Assoluta (in g acqua su mcubo gas)
> >>> Rapporto di mescolanza ( g acqua su kg gas)
> >>> Punto di rugiada (in gradi centigradi)
> >>> Entalpia (kJoule/Kg)
> >>> Si puo' anche calcolare la equivalente Temperatura di bulbo umido
> (gradi
> >>> centigradi) , secondo un algoritmo che approssima i risultati di uno
> >>> psicrometro "a fionda".
> >>>
> >>> Poiche' la misura originale e' data dalla umidita' percentuale va da
> se'
> >>> che
> >>> i valori

Re: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Michele Comitini]

>From Essen report we can expect that they used a pt100 probe:

http://www.testo.co.uk/online/abaxx-?$part=PORTAL.GBR.ProductCategoryDesk.active-area.catalog.ProductDetail.details.probes

works up to 550° C (the value reported by Essen)

now to calculate the x (dryness factor) from a Mollier diagram what is
missing is the pressure so the question is: how did they measure the
pressure?

mic


Il 04 agosto 2011 13:21, Michele Comitini 
ha scritto:
> I hope Galantini uses T and P and T is correct.  Some of those probes
> measure also P and that is correct too. Looking at a Mollier diag
> you know the dryness.  If Galantini did not measure P in the outlet or
> he used RH by the probe, well he has a problem!  or he knows something
> we do not know...
>
> mic
>
>
> Il 04 agosto 2011 12:56, Mattia Rizzi  ha scritto:
>> Delta ohm's engineer say that the entalphy is calculated by the instrument,
>> knwoing RH and temperature of gas. This is in accordance with the manual of
>> the instrument.
>> SInce RH measurement is flawed, all other derived measurements are flawed
>> too.
>>
>> -Messaggio originale- From: Michele Comitini
>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:35 PM
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini
>> instrument is useless
>>
>> Thanks Mattia,
>>
>> "Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
>> calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier"
>> "
>>
>> "The derived quantities that the tool allows you to view are
>> calculated from Mollier diagrams"
>>
>>
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html
>>
>> How did Galantini use the probe to meausure enthalpy?  Reading from
>> the datalogger or using a Mollier diagram knowing temperature
>> and pressure? In the latter he used only the temperature reading and
>> ignored the other quantities on the display and "derived" the quantity
>> by hand (or by a program on the pc)?
>>
>> Does anyone know if there is a  reference in the reports of the tests
>> to understand how did they read the instrument?
>>
>> I find this in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf:
>>
>> "The system to measure
>> the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with
>> a probe guaranteed to
>> resist up to 550°C"
>>
>> That is another type of datalogger and probe, but functionality seems
>> the same as deltaohm's.  Reading of RH on the screen of the datalogger
>> would not make sense.  So did they calculate the wet fraction
>> afterwards or did they have it shown on the pc? Else  they read the
>> number on
>> the little LCD display?? that would be at least bogus
>>
>> mic
>>
>> Il 04 agosto 2011 11:48, Mattia Rizzi  ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Hello.
>>> Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
>>> 1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and
>>> temperature, with Mollier diagrams
>>> 2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in 100%
>>> vapor mixture
>>> 3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water
>>> suspended, the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely give
>>> random numbers
>>>
>>>
>>> --- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
>>> Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
>>> Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
>>> A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
>>> Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore
>>>
>>> Gentile dottor De Leonardis
>>>
>>> Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.
>>>
>>> ""
>>> Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello strumento,
>>> questo e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della umidita' presente
>>> nell'aria.
>>> Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di acqua
>>> liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente quasi privo di
>>> aria .
>>> Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la
>>> umidita'
>>> relativa nell'aria e non altro.
>>> Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
>>> calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici molto
>>> precisi.
>>> Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del gas in esame si
>>> possono
>>> derivare le quantita' elencate nel nostro manuale, e precisamente:
>>> Umidita' Assoluta (in g acqua su mcubo gas)
>>> Rapporto di mescolanza ( g acqua su kg gas)
>>> Punto di rugiada (in gradi centigradi)
>>> Entalpia (kJoule/Kg)
>>> Si puo' anche calcolare la equivalente Temperatura di bulbo umido (gradi
>>> centigradi) , secondo un algoritmo che approssima i risultati di uno
>>> psicrometro "a fionda".
>>>
>>> Poiche' la misura originale e' data dalla umidita' percentuale va da se'
>>> che
>>> i valori di bassissima umidita' relativa (inferiori al 2%) o di altissima
>>> umidita' relativa (oltre il 95%), cioe' gli estremi di misura, sono
>>> relativamente meno affidabili e le misure derivate da simili valori sono
>>> meno precise.
>>>
>>> ""
>>>
>>> Il riferimento che viene fatto ad un gas senza 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Michele Comitini]

I hope Galantini uses T and P and T is correct.  Some of those probes
measure also P and that is correct too. Looking at a Mollier diag
you know the dryness.  If Galantini did not measure P in the outlet or
he used RH by the probe, well he has a problem!  or he knows something
we do not know...

mic


Il 04 agosto 2011 12:56, Mattia Rizzi  ha scritto:
> Delta ohm's engineer say that the entalphy is calculated by the instrument,
> knwoing RH and temperature of gas. This is in accordance with the manual of
> the instrument.
> SInce RH measurement is flawed, all other derived measurements are flawed
> too.
>
> -Messaggio originale- From: Michele Comitini
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:35 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini
> instrument is useless
>
> Thanks Mattia,
>
> "Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
> calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier"
> "
>
> "The derived quantities that the tool allows you to view are
> calculated from Mollier diagrams"
>
>
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html
>
> How did Galantini use the probe to meausure enthalpy?  Reading from
> the datalogger or using a Mollier diagram knowing temperature
> and pressure? In the latter he used only the temperature reading and
> ignored the other quantities on the display and "derived" the quantity
> by hand (or by a program on the pc)?
>
> Does anyone know if there is a  reference in the reports of the tests
> to understand how did they read the instrument?
>
> I find this in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf:
>
> "The system to measure
> the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with
> a probe guaranteed to
> resist up to 550°C"
>
> That is another type of datalogger and probe, but functionality seems
> the same as deltaohm's.  Reading of RH on the screen of the datalogger
> would not make sense.  So did they calculate the wet fraction
> afterwards or did they have it shown on the pc? Else  they read the
> number on
> the little LCD display?? that would be at least bogus
>
> mic
>
> Il 04 agosto 2011 11:48, Mattia Rizzi  ha scritto:
>>
>> Hello.
>> Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
>> 1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and
>> temperature, with Mollier diagrams
>> 2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in 100%
>> vapor mixture
>> 3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water
>> suspended, the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely give
>> random numbers
>>
>>
>> --- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
>> Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
>> Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
>> A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
>> Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore
>>
>> Gentile dottor De Leonardis
>>
>> Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.
>>
>> ""
>> Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello strumento,
>> questo e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della umidita' presente
>> nell'aria.
>> Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di acqua
>> liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente quasi privo di
>> aria .
>> Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la
>> umidita'
>> relativa nell'aria e non altro.
>> Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
>> calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici molto
>> precisi.
>> Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del gas in esame si
>> possono
>> derivare le quantita' elencate nel nostro manuale, e precisamente:
>> Umidita' Assoluta (in g acqua su mcubo gas)
>> Rapporto di mescolanza ( g acqua su kg gas)
>> Punto di rugiada (in gradi centigradi)
>> Entalpia (kJoule/Kg)
>> Si puo' anche calcolare la equivalente Temperatura di bulbo umido (gradi
>> centigradi) , secondo un algoritmo che approssima i risultati di uno
>> psicrometro "a fionda".
>>
>> Poiche' la misura originale e' data dalla umidita' percentuale va da se'
>> che
>> i valori di bassissima umidita' relativa (inferiori al 2%) o di altissima
>> umidita' relativa (oltre il 95%), cioe' gli estremi di misura, sono
>> relativamente meno affidabili e le misure derivate da simili valori sono
>> meno precise.
>>
>> ""
>>
>> Il riferimento che viene fatto ad un gas senza aria in cui esiste "vapore"
>> (
>> cioe' H2O gassoso) e "acqua liquida" cioe' ... acqua , a mio modo di
>> vedere
>> non e' altro che un sistema bifase acqua ( le goccioline) + vapore d'acqua
>> .
>> O se vogliamo vederlo al contrario : vapore d'acqua  in presenza della sua
>> condensa.
>> Il sensore NON e' adatto a misurare la quantita' di condensa , per quello
>> che lo riguarda non appena c'e' anche una sola goccia, in aria, ci si
>> trova
>> oltre il 100% di umidita' relativa.
>> Se poi aria non ce ne e',  tutto il ragionamento e' senza riferimenti
>> certi,
>> 

[Vo]:Re: [e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Mattia Rizzi]

Delta ohm's engineer say that the entalphy is calculated by the instrument, 
knwoing RH and temperature of gas. This is in accordance with the manual of 
the instrument.
SInce RH measurement is flawed, all other derived measurements are flawed 
too.


-Messaggio originale- 
From: Michele Comitini

Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini 
instrument is useless


Thanks Mattia,

"Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier"
"

"The derived quantities that the tool allows you to view are
calculated from Mollier diagrams"


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html

How did Galantini use the probe to meausure enthalpy?  Reading from
the datalogger or using a Mollier diagram knowing temperature
and pressure? In the latter he used only the temperature reading and
ignored the other quantities on the display and "derived" the quantity
by hand (or by a program on the pc)?

Does anyone know if there is a  reference in the reports of the tests
to understand how did they read the instrument?

I find this in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf:

"The system to measure
the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with
a probe guaranteed to
resist up to 550°C"

That is another type of datalogger and probe, but functionality seems
the same as deltaohm's.  Reading of RH on the screen of the datalogger
would not make sense.  So did they calculate the wet fraction
afterwards or did they have it shown on the pc? Else  they read the
number on
the little LCD display?? that would be at least bogus

mic

Il 04 agosto 2011 11:48, Mattia Rizzi  ha scritto:

Hello.
Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and
temperature, with Mollier diagrams
2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in 100%
vapor mixture
3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water
suspended, the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely give
random numbers


--- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore

Gentile dottor De Leonardis

Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.

""
Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello strumento,
questo e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della umidita' presente
nell'aria.
Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di acqua
liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente quasi privo di
aria .
Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la 
umidita'

relativa nell'aria e non altro.
Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici molto
precisi.
Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del gas in esame si 
possono

derivare le quantita' elencate nel nostro manuale, e precisamente:
Umidita' Assoluta (in g acqua su mcubo gas)
Rapporto di mescolanza ( g acqua su kg gas)
Punto di rugiada (in gradi centigradi)
Entalpia (kJoule/Kg)
Si puo' anche calcolare la equivalente Temperatura di bulbo umido (gradi
centigradi) , secondo un algoritmo che approssima i risultati di uno
psicrometro "a fionda".

Poiche' la misura originale e' data dalla umidita' percentuale va da se' 
che

i valori di bassissima umidita' relativa (inferiori al 2%) o di altissima
umidita' relativa (oltre il 95%), cioe' gli estremi di misura, sono
relativamente meno affidabili e le misure derivate da simili valori sono
meno precise.

""

Il riferimento che viene fatto ad un gas senza aria in cui esiste "vapore" 
(
cioe' H2O gassoso) e "acqua liquida" cioe' ... acqua , a mio modo di 
vedere
non e' altro che un sistema bifase acqua ( le goccioline) + vapore d'acqua 
.

O se vogliamo vederlo al contrario : vapore d'acqua  in presenza della sua
condensa.
Il sensore NON e' adatto a misurare la quantita' di condensa , per quello
che lo riguarda non appena c'e' anche una sola goccia, in aria, ci si 
trova

oltre il 100% di umidita' relativa.
Se poi aria non ce ne e',  tutto il ragionamento e' senza riferimenti 
certi,

dato che non esiste piu' il concetto stesso di umidita' relativa.
In condizioni del genere la risposta e' priva di senso, in quanto sara'
senza meno fuori scala e sinceramente non saprei cosa possa indicare.
Immaginare di metterlo in acqua per vedere cosa segna non penso possa
aiutare. Normalmente quando avviene condensa sul sensore cioe' esso si 
bagna

di acqua, per esempio per determinate condizioni di sbalzi atmosferici, la
nostra preoccupazione e' quanto tempo ci mette a riprendersi e uscire 
dalla

indicazione del 100%.
Il sensore puo' essere lavato in acqua deionizzata, ma e' una operazione 
che

va comunq

Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Michele Comitini]

Thanks Mattia,

"Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier"
"

"The derived quantities that the tool allows you to view are
calculated from Mollier diagrams"


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mollier-diagram-water-d_308.html

How did Galantini use the probe to meausure enthalpy?  Reading from
the datalogger or using a Mollier diagram knowing temperature
and pressure? In the latter he used only the temperature reading and
ignored the other quantities on the display and "derived" the quantity
by hand (or by a program on the pc)?

Does anyone know if there is a  reference in the reports of the tests
to understand how did they read the instrument?

I find this in http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf:

"The system to measure
the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with
a probe guaranteed to
resist up to 550°C"

That is another type of datalogger and probe, but functionality seems
the same as deltaohm's.  Reading of RH on the screen of the datalogger
would not make sense.  So did they calculate the wet fraction
afterwards or did they have it shown on the pc? Else  they read the
number on
the little LCD display?? that would be at least bogus

mic

Il 04 agosto 2011 11:48, Mattia Rizzi  ha scritto:
> Hello.
> Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
> 1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and
> temperature, with Mollier diagrams
> 2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in 100%
> vapor mixture
> 3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water
> suspended, the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely give
> random numbers
>
>
> --- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
> Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
> Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
> A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
> Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore
>
> Gentile dottor De Leonardis
>
> Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.
>
> ""
> Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello strumento,
> questo e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della umidita' presente
> nell'aria.
> Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di acqua
> liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente quasi privo di
> aria .
> Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la umidita'
> relativa nell'aria e non altro.
> Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
> calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici molto
> precisi.
> Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del gas in esame si possono
> derivare le quantita' elencate nel nostro manuale, e precisamente:
> Umidita' Assoluta (in g acqua su mcubo gas)
> Rapporto di mescolanza ( g acqua su kg gas)
> Punto di rugiada (in gradi centigradi)
> Entalpia (kJoule/Kg)
> Si puo' anche calcolare la equivalente Temperatura di bulbo umido (gradi
> centigradi) , secondo un algoritmo che approssima i risultati di uno
> psicrometro "a fionda".
>
> Poiche' la misura originale e' data dalla umidita' percentuale va da se' che
> i valori di bassissima umidita' relativa (inferiori al 2%) o di altissima
> umidita' relativa (oltre il 95%), cioe' gli estremi di misura, sono
> relativamente meno affidabili e le misure derivate da simili valori sono
> meno precise.
>
> ""
>
> Il riferimento che viene fatto ad un gas senza aria in cui esiste "vapore" (
> cioe' H2O gassoso) e "acqua liquida" cioe' ... acqua , a mio modo di vedere
> non e' altro che un sistema bifase acqua ( le goccioline) + vapore d'acqua .
> O se vogliamo vederlo al contrario : vapore d'acqua  in presenza della sua
> condensa.
> Il sensore NON e' adatto a misurare la quantita' di condensa , per quello
> che lo riguarda non appena c'e' anche una sola goccia, in aria, ci si trova
> oltre il 100% di umidita' relativa.
> Se poi aria non ce ne e',  tutto il ragionamento e' senza riferimenti certi,
> dato che non esiste piu' il concetto stesso di umidita' relativa.
> In condizioni del genere la risposta e' priva di senso, in quanto sara'
> senza meno fuori scala e sinceramente non saprei cosa possa indicare.
> Immaginare di metterlo in acqua per vedere cosa segna non penso possa
> aiutare. Normalmente quando avviene condensa sul sensore cioe' esso si bagna
> di acqua, per esempio per determinate condizioni di sbalzi atmosferici, la
> nostra preoccupazione e' quanto tempo ci mette a riprendersi e uscire dalla
> indicazione del 100%.
> Il sensore puo' essere lavato in acqua deionizzata, ma e' una operazione che
> va comunque fatta con delicatezza e fa decadere la garanzia.
>
> Spero questo possa essere utile, mi faccia sapere.
>
> Saluti
>
> Antonio Morra, DeltaOhm
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Mattia Rizzi]

Jed Rothwell, it’s over.

From: Mattia Rizzi 
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:48 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: [Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini 
instrument is useless

Hello.
Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and temperature, 
with Mollier diagrams
2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in 100% vapor 
mixture
3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water suspended, 
the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely give random numbers


--- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore

Gentile dottor De Leonardis

Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.

""
Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello strumento, questo 
e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della umidita' presente nell'aria.
Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di acqua 
liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente quasi privo di aria 
.
Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la umidita' 
relativa nell'aria e non altro.
Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono calcolate 
dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici molto precisi.
Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del gas in esame si possono 
derivare le quantita' elencate nel nostro manuale, e precisamente:
Umidita' Assoluta (in g acqua su mcubo gas)
Rapporto di mescolanza ( g acqua su kg gas)
Punto di rugiada (in gradi centigradi)
Entalpia (kJoule/Kg)
Si puo' anche calcolare la equivalente Temperatura di bulbo umido (gradi 
centigradi) , secondo un algoritmo che approssima i risultati di uno 
psicrometro "a fionda".

Poiche' la misura originale e' data dalla umidita' percentuale va da se' che i 
valori di bassissima umidita' relativa (inferiori al 2%) o di altissima 
umidita' relativa (oltre il 95%), cioe' gli estremi di misura, sono 
relativamente meno affidabili e le misure derivate da simili valori sono meno 
precise.

""

Il riferimento che viene fatto ad un gas senza aria in cui esiste "vapore" ( 
cioe' H2O gassoso) e "acqua liquida" cioe' ... acqua , a mio modo di vedere non 
e' altro che un sistema bifase acqua ( le goccioline) + vapore d'acqua .
O se vogliamo vederlo al contrario : vapore d'acqua  in presenza della sua 
condensa.
Il sensore NON e' adatto a misurare la quantita' di condensa , per quello che 
lo riguarda non appena c'e' anche una sola goccia, in aria, ci si trova oltre 
il 100% di umidita' relativa.
Se poi aria non ce ne e',  tutto il ragionamento e' senza riferimenti certi, 
dato che non esiste piu' il concetto stesso di umidita' relativa.
In condizioni del genere la risposta e' priva di senso, in quanto sara' senza 
meno fuori scala e sinceramente non saprei cosa possa indicare.
Immaginare di metterlo in acqua per vedere cosa segna non penso possa aiutare. 
Normalmente quando avviene condensa sul sensore cioe' esso si bagna di acqua, 
per esempio per determinate condizioni di sbalzi atmosferici, la nostra 
preoccupazione e' quanto tempo ci mette a riprendersi e uscire dalla 
indicazione del 100%.
Il sensore puo' essere lavato in acqua deionizzata, ma e' una operazione che va 
comunque fatta con delicatezza e fa decadere la garanzia.

Spero questo possa essere utile, mi faccia sapere.

Saluti

Antonio Morra, DeltaOhm

[Vo]:[e-cat] Engineer from delta ohm confirms that galantini instrument is useless

[Mattia Rizzi]

Hello.
Engineer from delta ohm (manufacter) confirms that:
1) The instruments measure enthalpy BY CALCULATION, given RH and
temperature, with Mollier diagrams
2)  The probe is suitable only for mneasure humidity IN AIR, not in 100%
vapor mixture
3) Inside the e-cat, without air and with liquid parctile of water
suspended, the instrukment is over range of operation and will likely give
random numbers


--- ITALIAN TEXT BELOW ---
Da: Antonio Morra [eng.a.mo...@gmail.com]
Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2011 17.27
A: DE LEONARDIS, MARCO
Oggetto: Misura acqua/vapore

Gentile dottor De Leonardis

Ho gia' inviato una risposta simile ad un'altra persona.

""
Come le sara' chiaro dalla specifica e dalle istruzioni dello strumento,
questo e' in grado di misurare alcuni parametri della umidita' presente
nell'aria.
Non credo di aver capito pertanto, cosa lei intende per frazione di acqua
liquida in una emissione di vapore oltretutto probabilmente quasi privo di
aria .
Il nostro strumento utilizza un sensore che permette di misurare la umidita'
relativa nell'aria e non altro.
Le grandezze derivate che lo strumento permette di visualizzare sono
calcolate dai diagrammi di Mollier, utilizzando algoritmi numerici molto
precisi.
Conoscendo la umidita' relativa e la temperatura del gas in esame si possono
derivare le quantita' elencate nel nostro manuale, e precisamente:
Umidita' Assoluta (in g acqua su mcubo gas)
Rapporto di mescolanza ( g acqua su kg gas)
Punto di rugiada (in gradi centigradi)
Entalpia (kJoule/Kg)
Si puo' anche calcolare la equivalente Temperatura di bulbo umido (gradi
centigradi) , secondo un algoritmo che approssima i risultati di uno
psicrometro "a fionda".

Poiche' la misura originale e' data dalla umidita' percentuale va da se' che
i valori di bassissima umidita' relativa (inferiori al 2%) o di altissima
umidita' relativa (oltre il 95%), cioe' gli estremi di misura, sono
relativamente meno affidabili e le misure derivate da simili valori sono
meno precise.

""

Il riferimento che viene fatto ad un gas senza aria in cui esiste "vapore" (
cioe' H2O gassoso) e "acqua liquida" cioe' ... acqua , a mio modo di vedere
non e' altro che un sistema bifase acqua ( le goccioline) + vapore d'acqua .
O se vogliamo vederlo al contrario : vapore d'acqua  in presenza della sua
condensa.
Il sensore NON e' adatto a misurare la quantita' di condensa , per quello
che lo riguarda non appena c'e' anche una sola goccia, in aria, ci si trova
oltre il 100% di umidita' relativa.
Se poi aria non ce ne e',  tutto il ragionamento e' senza riferimenti certi,
dato che non esiste piu' il concetto stesso di umidita' relativa.
In condizioni del genere la risposta e' priva di senso, in quanto sara'
senza meno fuori scala e sinceramente non saprei cosa possa indicare.
Immaginare di metterlo in acqua per vedere cosa segna non penso possa
aiutare. Normalmente quando avviene condensa sul sensore cioe' esso si bagna
di acqua, per esempio per determinate condizioni di sbalzi atmosferici, la
nostra preoccupazione e' quanto tempo ci mette a riprendersi e uscire dalla
indicazione del 100%.
Il sensore puo' essere lavato in acqua deionizzata, ma e' una operazione che
va comunque fatta con delicatezza e fa decadere la garanzia.

Spero questo possa essere utile, mi faccia sapere.

Saluti

Antonio Morra, DeltaOhm