Aw: [Vo]:T2 thermocouple anomalies

[peter . heckert]

 


- Original Nachricht 
Von: Horace Heffner 
An:  Vortex-L 
Datum:   12.10.2011 08:31
Betreff: [Vo]:T2 thermocouple anomalies

> The various anomalies associated with the T2 thermocouple, like its  
> disconnect from the Pout, may be explained by the close distance, a  
> few cm, of the internal fins to the lid. The T2 thermocouple rod,  
> which protrudes down through a fitting in the lid, may be long enough  
> to reach the fins.
> 
> Dennis Cravens noted that RF affects thermocouples.  They rectify the  
> signal. This has been observed in CF experiments.  This would mean  
> the RF signal could bias T2 upwards during the heat after death period.
> 

I have built and tested electronic thermoamplifiers myself professionally.
Metallic thermocouples (e.g. Ni-CrNi) have very low DC and AC impedance and 
cannot rectify RF.
The problem are the amplifiers, and the zeropoint compensator these are /very/ 
sensitive and can rectify RF.
This however should not happen with measuring instruments that are certified.

Problems /can/ appear if the noninsulated tip or the wires are shorted by 
another kind metal.

[Vo]:T2 thermocouple anomalies

[Horace Heffner]

The various anomalies associated with the T2 thermocouple, like its  
disconnect from the Pout, may be explained by the close distance, a  
few cm, of the internal fins to the lid. The T2 thermocouple rod,  
which protrudes down through a fitting in the lid, may be long enough  
to reach the fins.


Dennis Cravens noted that RF affects thermocouples.  They rectify the  
signal. This has been observed in CF experiments.  This would mean  
the RF signal could bias T2 upwards during the heat after death period.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:More calcs.

[Horace Heffner]

My review of the Rossi 7 Oct 2011 experiment has been updated.

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

Also, the following sections were added:

VOLUME CALCULATIONS

The Lewan report  says: "The E-cat model used in this test was  
enclosed in a casing measuring about 50 x 60 x 35 centimeters."   
These appear to be external measurements with wrapping, etc.


"After cooling down the E-cat, the insulation was eliminated and the  
casing was opened. Inside the casing metal flanges of a heat  
exchanger could be seen, an object measuring about 30 x 30 x 30  
centimeters. The rest of the volume was empty space where water could  
be heated, entering through a valve at the bottom, and with a valve  
at the top where steam could come out. "


This gives an external volume of (50 x 60 x 35) cm^3 = 105000 cm^3 =  
105 liters. The heat exchanger etc. is (30 x 30 x 30) cm^3 = 27  
liters. This should give an internal volume of 105 liters - 27 liters  
= 78 liters.  The disagrees with Rossi’s prior statements.


Rossi states: “The volume free for the water is about 30 liters, so  
that to fill up it are necessary about 2 hours ( the pump of the  
primary circuit pumps about 15 liters per hour), but, as a matter of  
fact, the water begins to evaporate before the box is full of water,  
so usually the “Effect” of the reactor starts before 2 hours.”


Using the photo in the NyTeknik report, an estimate of internal  
dimensions can be made.  The width of the finned structure is 134  
pixels, giving in that line 134 px/(30 cm) = 4.467 pix/cm. The box  
width on that line is 209 pix, giving a true dimension of (209 px)/ 
(4.467 px/m) = 46.8 cm. The length of the finned structure is 253 px,  
giving in that line (253 px)/(30 cm) = 8.43 px/cm.  The inside length  
of the box is 376 px, giving a true length of 44.6 cm.  The lip  
appears to be 35 px/(4.467 px/cm) = 7.8 cm wide.  Judging from the  
lip width, the top of the finned structure appears to be about 4 cm  
below the lid.


The gross inner volume of the box is (44.6 cm x 46.8 cm x 34 cm) = 71  
liters.


The gross volume of the finned structure is (30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm) =  
27 liters.


It looks like about (1/9)*30 cm = 3.3 cm is cooling fins.  About 50%  
of the 3.3 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm = 3 liters should be water, giving a  
total finned structure volume of 27 liters - 3 liters = 24 liters.


The net water occupiable volume of the box is thus 71 liters - 27  
liters = 44 liters.


The prior similar E-cat weighed in at 85 kg.  The current E-cat  
weighed 95 kg before water was added.


ESTIMATING THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT WATER FLOW RATE

The extreme instability of Pout begins at about 169 minutes into the  
run.  If we assume this means percolator effects begin then the  
device should be almost full.  It should contain close to 44 liters  
of water.   The flow rate to accomplish this is (44 liters)/(169  
minutes) = 4.34 ml/s or 15 liters per hour.  This is a familiar  
number as a pump limit, but not as the primary circuit flow rate.   
Percolator effects could happen at a lesser volume if ripples are  
made in the water level .


If the stated water volume of 30 liters is correct then the flow rate  
to accomplish percolator effects is (30 liters)/(169 minutes) = 3 ml/ 
s or 10.7 liters per hour. This is not consistent with the flow rate  
1.5 ml/sec, or 5.4 liters per hour estimated earlier.  Note that if  
this flow rate is correct then the stored energy calulated in prior  
sections is reduced. It is also true that more iron could be used to  
increase the thermal capacity, and space for such is available.  The  
numbers provided here are only for concept checking.  A sophisitcated  
model and knowledge of actual measurements is needed for an accurate  
consistency check.  Unfortuantely measurement of flow rate into the E- 
cat was not made, even though a water meter was in the circuit.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:pictures, data, analysis of July 7 test of fatCat

[Andrea Selva]

I may be wrong but it looks like those 2 boxes are connected to the
Bianchini's gamma ray detector. Could they be part of Bianchini's instrument
set ?
Regards
Andrea

2011/10/12 Horace Heffner 

>
> On Oct 11, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>  On Oct.6th  Passerini posted  info and pics on his blog of the July
>> 7th test with Stremmenos.
>>
>> http://22passi.blogspot.com/**2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-**2011.html
>>
>> You can see two fat eCats wrapped in black insulation. Evidently the
>> fat eCat has been around since atleast the beginning of July.
>> This experiment also uses a  flow of 15kg/hr.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
> Say, I wonder, what is the little white box and the black box behind it, in
> the third picture down.  RF generator in that picture?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:pictures, data, analysis of July 7 test of fatCat

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 11, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:


On Oct.6th  Passerini posted  info and pics on his blog of the July
7th test with Stremmenos.

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html

You can see two fat eCats wrapped in black insulation. Evidently the
fat eCat has been around since atleast the beginning of July.
This experiment also uses a  flow of 15kg/hr.

Harry



Say, I wonder, what is the little white box and the black box behind  
it, in the third picture down.  RF generator in that picture?



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:pictures, data, analysis of July 7 test of fatCat

[Harry Veeder]

On Oct.6th  Passerini posted  info and pics on his blog of the July
7th test with Stremmenos.

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html

You can see two fat eCats wrapped in black insulation. Evidently the
fat eCat has been around since atleast the beginning of July.
This experiment also uses a  flow of 15kg/hr.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: fat-cat architecure

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 11, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


At 01:50 PM 10/11/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Anyway, there are multiple cells and only one cell was in use  
during this test.
I assume each of the 4 cells has its own reservoir, so 30 L / 4 =  
7.4 L.


That's not my interpretation.

The fat-cat is a big tub of overall volume 110 litres.
The "wafer" is 20 x 20 x 4 cm = 1.6 litres



Lewan's report says: "Inside the casing metal flanges of a heat  
exchanger could be seen, an object measuring about 30 x 30 x 30  
centimeters."


Was that a typo?


It's not stated whether each core has its own wafer, or if multiple  
cores are in the same wafer.
The rest of the space is taken up by "steel wings" -- presumably we  
can see one of them -- the corrugated object at the top of Lewan's  
picture.


What's left over is 30 liters, which doesn't "belong" to any core.
(Again, 2 hours to fill at 15 litres/hour doesn't match Lewan's 0.9  
g/s)


I've seen that 30 liter number somewhere before too.  I don't recall  
where.  It does not jive with the apparent dimensions though.




I looked for a hose between the core and the outlet of the ecat --  
but couldn't see it -- because there isn't one.
The outlet is just a bent tube coming out of the top of the eCat --  
with a hole at the top serving as the instrument port.
Again, I couldn't see any trailing wires in the lid, so the  
thermocouple must be right in the outlet tube.


The thermocouple used has a handle on it and a long probe.  It may  
well reach the radiator fins.


One thing that concerns me is the seal holding the probe in place  
would have to be very good to keep the probe from blowing out of the  
hole, or the hole from leaking, if the device is under pressure.




I'll have to think what this means for Lewan's September case, with  
120C at the outlet, and 50% water !!!
The only rational explanation is 2 bar 50% dry, with excess water  
just bubbling up through the outlet tube.




The primary circuit is open.  How can the E-cat maintain a 2 bar  
internal pressure?  If there is a pressure restriction it would have  
to be in the horizontal part of the thermocouple mounting T, on the  
leg away from the thermocouple.



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:Water meters

[Horace Heffner]

Does anyone know what units are displayed on the odometer type  
display and sweep hands on the water meters used?


It says m^3 on the face, and the dials have x0.1, x 0.01, x0.001 and  
one with a value I can't read but assume is x0.0001.


No instrument specs were provided.  At the top it looks like "A-B Pn16"

If the smallest unit is 1 m^3 I can see why the data was not recoded,  
especially for the E-cat input water. The units are inappropriate.


However, the following Sensu PN 16 meter data sheet looks interesting:

http://delvin.co.nz/datasheets/WMU-data.htm

It states: "The black digits on the roller counter indicate whole  
cubic meters."
"Parts of a cubic meter are indicated by the red roller counter  
digits or by the red sweep hands."


This means one of the little sweep hands, the x0.001 hand, should  
read in liters, which would be very good. A x0.0001 hand would be  
even better!


The possibility such great data was not taken is extremely  
disappointing.



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos calls Defkalion press release "megalomaniac"

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 12-10-2011 1:00, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:

This is better than a weekly soap-opera!
Stay tuned for next week's exciting episode where we'll all learn who's
sleeping with who, and who the double-agent is!
:-)
-mark

Those were the days, with the Campbells and the Tates.

MoB

//

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos calls Defkalion press release "megalomaniac"

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
 wrote:

> Stay tuned for next week's exciting episode where we'll all learn who's
> sleeping with who . . .

" . . . sleeping with whom . . ."

T, prez narcissist society  :-)

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: fat-cat architecure

[Robert Leguillon]

In the September report, they drain the water in the E-Cat through the fill 
port, and 22,400 grams are expelled. This seems to be at or near overflowing, 
based on the collected water; Also, the E-Cat weighed about a kg more than it 
started at (this is presumably water retained below the level of the input 
valve). This puts E-Cat water capacity in September at ~23,400 kg (23.4 litres).
Of course, for this to apply to October's test, we are stuck assuming that all 
of the "wafers" were in place in both demonstrations. It sounded as though the 
reactor cores were contained in a shell inside of the reactor, but this remains 
unclear. We cannot determine October's water quantity without more information.
Back to flow rates. We know that in the Sept test, the pump dropped from 
~4.38g/s when disconnected, all the way down to 3.07g/s during operation. But, 
the 4.38g/s exceeds the manufacturer's specified range, so this rate is 
unclear. We know it was run below its highest rate in the October test, because 
it is sped up for "quenching" or "cool down". Since the pump flow varies based 
on back pressure,  and input flow was not metered, we cannot determine 
October's flow rate into the E-Cat.  The pump displacement and pump speed are 
adjustable. The sound in the video can indicate pump speed, but not 
displacement.


Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>At 01:50 PM 10/11/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>Anyway, there are multiple cells and only one cell was in use during 
>>this test.
>>I assume each of the 4 cells has its own reservoir, so 30 L / 4 = 7.4 L.
>
>That's not my interpretation.
>
>The fat-cat is a big tub of overall volume 110 litres.
>The "wafer" is 20 x 20 x 4 cm = 1.6 litres
>It's not stated whether each core has its own wafer, or if multiple 
>cores are in the same wafer.
>The rest of the space is taken up by "steel wings" -- presumably we 
>can see one of them -- the corrugated object at the top of Lewan's picture.
>
>What's left over is 30 liters, which doesn't "belong" to any core.
>(Again, 2 hours to fill at 15 litres/hour doesn't match Lewan's 0.9 g/s)
>
>I looked for a hose between the core and the outlet of the ecat -- 
>but couldn't see it -- because there isn't one.
>The outlet is just a bent tube coming out of the top of the eCat -- 
>with a hole at the top serving as the instrument port.
>Again, I couldn't see any trailing wires in the lid, so the 
>thermocouple must be right in the outlet tube.
>
>I'll have to think what this means for Lewan's September case, with 
>120C at the outlet, and 50% water !!!
>The only rational explanation is 2 bar 50% dry, with excess water 
>just bubbling up through the outlet tube.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Horace Heffner report

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 11, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


At 01:37 AM 10/11/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:  ..

In the section :

NO HEAT TRANSFER TO HEAT EXCHANGER UNTIL 13:22
19:22: "Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger,  
supposedly condensed steam, to be

345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C."

you're using the flow after it was increased to cool down the system.

You should use  Lewan's 0.9 g/s .. (or the pump's 2ml * 40 strokes/ 
minute = 1.33 g/s)

0.91 * 7800 seconds = 7.1 litres.

This system supposedly has one eCat, while Lewan's Sept version had  
two or three, and needed 25 litres to start overflowing, so this  
data is more consistent than most that we've seen from October.




I have significantly changed my review at:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

The following sections I think are relevant.  Only very rough  
estimates are provided because there is not enough data to go on for  
accurate calculations.  However, hopefully the basic concepts are OK.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NO HEAT TRANSFER TO HEAT EXCHANGER UNTIL 13:22

The heat showed up in the exchanger at about 146 minutes, or 8760  
seconds into the run. See appended graph, or see spreadsheet at:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf

See appended graphs, or see spreadsheet at:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf

In the ecat.com video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhvD4KuAEmo

at time 0:29, there were 30 strokes in 40 seconds, or about 45  
strokes per minute. That is a maximum flow rate of (30 str/(40 s))*(2  
ml/str) = 1.5 ml/sec, or 5.4 liters per hour, if the pump stroke were  
set at 2 ml.


The earlier noted flow measurement of 0.9 g/s, by Lewan, was at the  
output of the water/steam from the condenser heat exchanger.  It  
might have had nothing to do with with the actual pump rate.  It only  
had to do with the volume of steam being output, which is independent  
of the volume of water being pumped in - unless overflow is  
occurring, which seems unlikely at the early stage.


A flow of 1.5 ml/sec  means the flow filled a void of (8760 s)*(1.5  
ml/s) = 13.1 liters, or about 13 liters before hot water began to  
either overflow or percolate out of the device, and thus make it to  
the heat exchanger.


If overflow started after 13 liters then it would appear 81 - 12 = 68  
liters were already present.  The device weighed in at 98 kg before  
the test and 99 kg after, when the water was drained, making this  
impossible.


If the E-cat cold water input is 24°C and 12 liters were input, it  
takes  (4.2 J/(gm K)) *(13,000 gm))*(76K) = 4.15 MJ = 1.15 kWh to  
heat the water to boiling.


CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CENTRAL MASS

Looking at the spread sheet, by time 146 the input energy Ein   
reached was 4.446 kWh.  This implies about 4.446 kWh - 1.15 kWh = 3.3  
kWh = 11.88 MJ was required to heat up the thermal mass of metal in  
the center of the E-cat, and immediately surrounding area.


Suppose there is a mass of iron between the cooling fins and heater.   
There might also be a layer of higher thermal resistance between the  
iron and the cooling fins.  Use 50 kg as a rough guess at the mass of  
the iron.


The specific heat capacity of iron is 0.46 J/(gm °C).  The heat  
capacity of 50 kg of iron is thus (0.46 J/(gm °C)) * ( 50,000 gm) =  
2.3x10^4 J/°C.


Storing the 11.88 MJ requires a mean storage Delta T of (1.188x10^7  
J)/(2.3x10^4 J/°C) = 516°C. Assuming the metal started out at 27°C  
that means an iron temperature of 543°C.


This sets a limit on the period of heat after death boiling that can  
occur. If the central metal is heated to 543°C, then energy stored  
for boiling is 443°C * (2.3x10^4 J/°C) = 10.2 MJ.


To last through the heat after death period from 284 min. to 476 min.  
= 192 min., the water boiling power output is limited to an average  
of 10.2 MJ/(192 min.) = 885 W.  Limiting the mean thermal output of  
the stored thermal mass to a mean output of 885 W  requires a  
significant degree of thermal resistance between the thermal mass and  
the water heat exchanger above the thermal mass.


At a midpoint of heat after death, thus a thermal mass delta T of 443° 
C/2 = 222°C, i.e. delta T of 22°C to the boiling water, the thermal  
resistance required between the thermal mass and the water is (222°C)/ 
(885 W) = 0.025 °C/W.


Registering a multi-kilowatt heat output at the heat exchanger then  
requires that the Tout thermocouple be under the influence of the  
steam/water mix, and that a mean output of 885 W provides a steam/ 
water mix that can drive the Tout reading up about 8°C.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Stremmenos calls Defkalion press release "megalomaniac"

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

This is better than a weekly soap-opera!
Stay tuned for next week's exciting episode where we'll all learn who's
sleeping with who, and who the double-agent is!
:-)
-mark

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: fat-cat architecure

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:50 PM 10/11/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Anyway, there are multiple cells and only one cell was in use during 
this test.

I assume each of the 4 cells has its own reservoir, so 30 L / 4 = 7.4 L.


That's not my interpretation.

The fat-cat is a big tub of overall volume 110 litres.
The "wafer" is 20 x 20 x 4 cm = 1.6 litres
It's not stated whether each core has its own wafer, or if multiple 
cores are in the same wafer.
The rest of the space is taken up by "steel wings" -- presumably we 
can see one of them -- the corrugated object at the top of Lewan's picture.


What's left over is 30 liters, which doesn't "belong" to any core.
(Again, 2 hours to fill at 15 litres/hour doesn't match Lewan's 0.9 g/s)

I looked for a hose between the core and the outlet of the ecat -- 
but couldn't see it -- because there isn't one.
The outlet is just a bent tube coming out of the top of the eCat -- 
with a hole at the top serving as the instrument port.
Again, I couldn't see any trailing wires in the lid, so the 
thermocouple must be right in the outlet tube.


I'll have to think what this means for Lewan's September case, with 
120C at the outlet, and 50% water !!!
The only rational explanation is 2 bar 50% dry, with excess water 
just bubbling up through the outlet tube.

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> 1. Put a tap in the hose to draw off samples periodically. To get an
> accurate temperature, you draw off 1 L into a Dewar (a thermos bottle), stir
> vigorously and insert several thermocouples and thermometers.
>

Toss out the first liter and fill it again. Maybe put the Dewar into a large
bucket and let the water run into it and overflow for a few minutes. Bring
the body of the Dewar itself up to the same temperature as the water.

I don't use an actual Dewar, since they are expensive. I use a thermos like
this:

http://www.target.com/p/Thermos-Stainless-Steel-Briefcase-Bottle/-/A-10318103

Only mine was free, from Office Depot.

I have done this often with two thermocouples and three red liquid
thermometers. Believe me, you get the same temperature on all 5 instruments
to within 1°, and you get the right answer. Not precise, but accurate. There
is no 2°C discrepancy. You can be darn sure of the Delta T, because you
compare each thermometer to itself, when placed in a sample of tap water.

Red liquid ones cost $25. See:

http://www.omega.com/Temperature/pdf/GT-RL_THERMOMETERS.pdf

If Rossi had done this we would know with absolute certainty what the inlet
and outlet temperatures are to within 1°C. At that flow rate, that is comes
to +/- 750 W accuracy. That's nothing to write home about. You can do better
with electronic instruments and of course he should have used electronic
instruments. You can trust any electronic computer based instrument to about
0.1°C, even the low quality ones. Assuming you are smarter than a boiled
sheep and you remember to calibrate it and test it with an ordinary electric
heater.

My point is, with 5 handheld instruments costing ~$200 total, you could do
this test and get data with such assurance that only a scientific illiterate
would argue with it. (Let's say someone who believes you can store up 30 MJ
once and then release them twice.) You would have proof that 3 hours into
the heat after death the power was 6.3 kW +/- 0.8 kW. Measure it manually 4
times an hour, add in the computer log which has much better precision and
thousands more data points, and Bob's your uncle.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Hi Mark,

Permission to vent granted.

Let me reciprocate with a few fissures of my own.

Mill's & BLP have often been criticized for giving the appearance of
going off in too many directions, and as such, depleting their limited
resources. To be honest I don't know how justified such complaints
really are. Nevertheless, it's the appearance they have given to many
of us who reside in the distinguished Peanut Gallery section. Perhaps
BLP's BoD members would disagree, but who among us are privy to their
wisdom.

And now, on to a little unwarranted and scientifically baseless
speculation. ;-) Looking at the continuing BLP saga from the
perception of what the New Age "Witch Doctor", (whom I occasionally
have conversations with), it would seem they aren't very impressed
with the company either. The WD doesn't seem to think much of Mills'
CQM theory. Well... actually, the WD doesn't seem to think much of
anyone's current "CF"/"LENR" theory, at least the current crop of
them. I guess that probably includes the infamous WLT as well, but I
haven't asked the WD specifically about that one. They seem to be
giving me the impression that Mills' CQM theory is probably getting in
the way of fundamental research, perhaps due to the theory's
theoretical eccentricities. They continue: A lot more fundamental
research into what is now called Dark Matter and Dark Energy is
needed. Eventually, theoretical research and data collection such as
what is now beginning to be collected over at CERN will start
revealing the necessary evidence that will result in the need to
assemble new theories that explain where Rossi's anomalous heat comes
from and how best to exploit it. Apparently, there's a lot of energy
worth exploiting here - enough to blow up the planet if we don't mind
the store.

Again, they told me Rossi's s mysterious energy comes from when matter
changes state, such as from a solid to a liquid and back. It was
described as something to do with changes to the external orbital
shells of certain elements and alloys as they transition from
different states. Don't ask me how this happens. It's all Greek to me.

And now, back to traditional scientific analysis - and regularly
scheduled venting.

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

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> As it happens, I offered to visit him with a team of experts from the second
> best technical university in the U.S. to evaluate teh setup and take data.

Second best?  Harummph!

:-)

T

[Vo]:Japan's revised energy plan

[Jed Rothwell]

See:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/10/05/Japan-takes-steps-to-revise-energy-plan/UPI-61081317835370/#ixzz1aKbhqLE0

The Fukushima accident has had a profound impact. The statements and
attitudes in this article would be unthinkable a year ago. Such as:

"Headed by Nippon Steel Corp. Chairman Akio Mimura, the panel plans to
devise a new energy plan for the resource-poor nation as early as next
summer. Nearly half of its 25 members oppose nuclear power generation."

I would say nuclear power in Japan is dead. It is just a matter of time
before it is phased out.

Taking everything into account I believe nuclear power was probably the
cheapest source of electricity in Japan before Fukushima. Perhaps
hydroelectricity was cheaper but they have tapped that out. I do not have
the numbers but I suspect that when you factor the cost of the accident,
including compensation and damages to people who can no longer live near the
reactor, nuclear power is now the most expensive source of electricity.

It reminds me of the safety record of the Concorde supersonic passenger jet.
It went from best to worst in one accident. Aviation safety is measured per
passenger mile, and there were only 20 Concordes, seating 100 people each.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> I said that the outlet water from
> > the heat exchanger should be made available to observers so they could
> > independently test the temperature with their own equipment.
>
> This is of course possible, but is it? 600 kg/h water is lots of water
> and it is not trivial to dispose it anywhere that is convenient for
> the observers.
>

Yes, it is a trivial matter. I thought of three ways to do this the moment I
saw the video:

1. Put a tap in the hose to draw off samples periodically. To get an
accurate temperature, you draw off 1 L into a Dewar (a thermos bottle), stir
vigorously and insert several thermocouples and thermometers.

2. Use a 1 m hose from the heat exchanger into a large bucket. Place a
utility pump and garden hose in the bucket to pump the water outside.

3. A variation on #2, drill a hole in side of the large bucket close to the
bottom, glue in or screw in a pipe fitting, and attach the 20 m hose.

Methods 2 and 3 are preferred because they would shorten the hose and
prevent anyone from accidentally stepping on the hose or kinking it, which
would change the flow rate. You will note in the video there was a doormat
sitting on top of the hose. Yes, a DOORMAT, for goodness sake! What kind of
idiot puts a doormat on top of hose in an experiment in which a stable,
known flow rate is critical?!?

Of course the flow rate should be recorded on computer anyway, but still,
that is an extraordinarily lame brained thing to do.

If Rossi had allowed me to look at the setup a day or two before the test I
could have made this along with the other changes I suggested. That is
purely hypothetical; e would never allow me or anyone else to make any
changes whatever. I expect he would not even allow me or anyone else to zero
out the meter or install an SD card.

I should point out that these suggestions I made were not only from me, they
were from distinguished experts. I told him so. It isn't as if he is
rejecting only my suggestions. I do not take it personally.

As it happens, I offered to visit him with a team of experts from the second
best technical university in the U.S. to evaluate teh setup and take data.
He refused, rather ungraciously. He told me, in effect, that under no
circumstances will he ever accept any suggestions from me or from anyone
else. No matter how qualified you are, you will find there is no point to
making technical suggestions to Andrea Rossi. It is a lot like talking to a
wall.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:51 PM 10/11/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
It had nothing to do with Rossi,
but Mats Lewan was the culprit, because he failed to measure all the
necessary variables. 
On the contrary -- Lewan jumped in and RESCUED what we do have. Without
him we would have NOTHING except Rossi's eCat temperature logs.

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52353.html
[Vo]:My comments to Lewan about pen and paper dataJed
Rothwell
...
Lewan remarked that he was not prepared to collect data and play as
active a
role in the test as he ended up playing. 

...

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> But if you do not have such a fancy toys around, then you have to
> improvise. . .
>

Most of the equipment he needed was right there! All he had to do was use it
properly. As I said, the Termometro 4 channel TM-947 SD could have recorded
the temperatures to a computer. Just read the manual, put an SD card in it,
and press a few buttons.

He has a computer recording temperatures already. Surely he can attach a few
more thermocouples and a couple of flow meters to it. Or get another
computer. They cost nothing these day. I have them coming out of my ears.

Any missing equipment could be purchased in a few hours on the internet. He
may not have a high precision flowmeter for the primary circuit, or a
digital recording flowmeter for 10 L/min. He could purchase these at a
modest cost. I would have been happy to provide them, if I had known he was
planning to do a test without them.

Doing a test without the proper instruments and without recording on a
computer is crazy. It is waste of time. Inviting people to such a test is an
insult.

What the heck is he doing running a lab without a damned recording
flowmeter, anyway? Seriously, are we supposed to believe he will soon turn
on a 1 MW reactor made from 52 small units, but he does not have a proper
flowmeter in his lab?!? Does he plan to "improvise" that? He will blow his
head off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/10/12 Jed Rothwell :
> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
>>
>> Therefore I do not complain Mats for being incompetent, because I know
>> that Horace, Jed and me would have failed in similar manner. It is just too
>> easy to be wise five days after the demonstration.
>
> I was wise before the demonstration. It took no great skill, but as I wrote
> here, in a message I copied to Rossi:
> ". . . Several days before this test, I sent Rossi a short list of
> suggestions. For example, I said that all data should be recorded on a
> single computer with time stamped records. I said that the outlet water from
> the heat exchanger should be made available to observers so they could
> independently test the temperature with their own equipment.

This is of course possible, but is it? 600 kg/h water is lots of water
and it is not trivial to dispose it anywhere that is convenient for
the observers.

But if Mats had been creative, he could have measured the mass flow of
the output of primary loop. If there is a correlation between mass
flow and secondary loop ΔT, then it means, that E-Cat is not
overflowing. And if E-Cat is not overflowing, then we get directly the
total enthalpy from the mass flow and we can calibrate the heat
exchanger.

There is always opportunities to be creative. But it is hard.

But you are right. We definitely should have more data points from the
secondary loop than every ten minutes. This was major mistake that was
done.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos calls Defkalion press release "megalomaniac"

[Peter Heckert]

Does Stremmenos not longer belong to Defkalion?
He was vice president and chief scientist some time ago..

Am 11.10.2011 23:08, schrieb Jed Rothwell:

Good grief!

Here is Google translation:



Christos Stremmenos
October 11th, 2011 at 11:32 AM
By chance I learned of the release of the GT SA Defkalion (Athens 
11.10.10) and I feel a moral obligation to act in faith to my 
convictions have already been made public at the time .. I supported 
and still support, the impassability of the following values: 
scientific truth and Its contribution anthropocentric, ... the values 
of culture, democracy, human civilization as it Develops and 
Environmental Health, ... ... my home country, Greece is not in 
Parochial , but diachronically as a figure, bearing the above values.
Megalomaniac is presumptuous of this press Defkalion GT SA ...!., 
Harms not only its image, but in my opinion with obvious inaccuracies, 
it also damages the cause of the prospect for a new energy ... err, 
especially for Greece economically needy .
My speech is not only moralizing but also an attempt to stem the 
celebrations communicative Defkalion GT SA, because I feel personally 
responsible, both for the transfer of technology Rossi in Greece for 
the existence of Defcalion same instrument ... implementation failure 
...!. I affirm the following:
1. You can not develop a technology if you do not know the heart in 
which it is based.
2. Failure to comply with the contract for financial reasons prevented 
him from having access to the crucial element is the invention of Rossi.
3. The alleged engineering concerns, perhaps, the exploitation of 
energy from some old oil lamp  or similar sources ... Seriously, 
sketches with the computer without a scientific basis and years of 
experience in the field, can not sustain the claim of "Advanced 
Technology and Engineering of the invention or inventions like ... 
Red! .."
4. The aluminum fins in a heat exchanger, can not be a trade secret of 
Defkalion ...!., The plumbers have invented many years ago ...!. So 
unfair to blame Rossi for the improper use public demonstration of 
these fins Aluminum ... ... WE ARE SERIOUS! ..
I could go on the list of inaccuracies scientific / technological 
knowledge and experience, recognizing certain subject tiring but 
clumsy attempts to Defkalion in the economic / business to be 
discussed later:
• Prepared business models for expanding international Defkalion NOT 
HAD ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT, THE OUTSIDE OF 
GREECE AND THE BALKANS, SO HE HAS MADE AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE THE BALKANS 
AND GREECE HAVE DONE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AND ABUSIVE
• Prepared the legislative procedures and certification: HOW TO HAVE 
PREPARED FA Defkalion LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES FOR CERTIFICATION OF 
PRODUCTS, HE HAS NEVER HAD ANY tidings THE PRODUCT, WHICH DOES NOT 
COMPLY WITH THE FINANCIAL TERMS OF THE CONTRACT? CERTIFICATE HAS A UFO?
• Ensured a national, regional and international politics and 
business: Defkalion WOULD HAVE (IF YOU HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF 
THE FINANCIAL AGREEMENT) THE EXCLUSIVE ONLY FOR GREECE AND THE BALKANS
• Prepared overall funding: THIS 'COMEDY: THE REASON FOR WHICH THE 
CONTRACT BETWEEN Defkalion AND RED AND' STATE IS YOUR CANCELLED 
inability 'Defkalion TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize Defkalion THAT IS NOT GREECE 
 Nor A. Xanthulis and its imaginative communication consultants 
.. . I can assure you that there is also good ... the disabled in this 
society.

[PLUS THIS IN ENGLISH:]

Now, answering the question of why Greece became of the use of this 
green revolutionary technology and why it was chosen to be leader in 
business (Grecia e Balcani) but hopefully also in research and 
technology in this field, let me note three basic reasons:


Our country has no primary energy sources except for lignite and 
hydroelectric energy. All other means of energy, especially the 
renewable, rely on imported technology, which reflects greatly on the 
cost of them.


The current Political Leadership of the Country was always sensitive 
to innovation, especially in the field of green energy growth. The 
current political leadership was aware since 2004 of this technology, 
the reports of the progress of this scientific field were expected 
with great interest and hope that someday there might be some 
practical application of this technology.


In our country can exist Businessmen with courage and bravery, but 
also with a high patriotic sense of responsibility, ready to risk and 
invest in such an important technology. It is not about what we will 
gain from this Homeland, but what we are ready to offer to our 
country, especially in these difficult times!


Therefore, it was quite easy two years ago ,to convince my friends and 
long-time working on the LENR, Rossi and Focardi that -based on the 
above prerequisites- they should consider Greece as a interesting 
point for the developm

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> Therefore I do not complain Mats for being incompetent, because I know that
> Horace, Jed and me would have failed in similar manner. It is just too easy
> to be wise five days after the demonstration.


I was wise before the demonstration. It took no great skill, but as I wrote
here, in a message I copied to Rossi:

". . . Several days before this test, I sent Rossi a short list of
suggestions. For example, I said that all data should be recorded on a
single computer with time stamped records. I said that the outlet water from
the heat exchanger should be made available to observers so they could
independently test the temperature with their own equipment. It would have
taken an hour or two to implement these changes. My suggestions would have
answered *every one of the objections* that has been raised against this
test so far. Every single one."

I am not saying that I described a perfect test. There can be no such thing.
I did anticipate all the major problems. So did several other people here.

More to the point, it would have been easy to fix these problems. It would
have taken no more effort to set this test up correctly than it did to set
it up wrong.



For the record, Rossi vehemently disagrees with me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Robert Leguillon]

That was intentional - just keeping you guys on your toes.
Irregardless:  should be regardless
Four corners of the Earth:  the earth does not have "four corners"
Supposably: should be "SupposeDLy"
Commonplaced: should be "commonplace" (no "d")


"Stephen A. Lawrence"  wrote:

>
>
>On 11-10-10 04:35 PM, Robert Leguillon wrote:
>>
>> If someone "Couldn't care less", it means that they care so little 
>> that it's impossible for them to care any less than they do right now.
>> If someone "Could care less", it means that they care enough that it's 
>> possible to care less.
>>
>> _*Irregardless*_, people will continue to use the phrase to the four 
>> corners of the earth. Supposably, it's commonplaced.
>
>Oops.
>
>In fact, "regardless" is the word you want there.  "Irregardless" is not 
>an "official word" but if it were it would mean the opposite of what you 
>intended.  (Some modern dictionaries have surrendered to the 
>ungrammatical hordes and now define it as a synonym for "regardless", 
>but all us nit-pickers out here know they're wrong.)
>
>
>
>>
>> > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:24:41 -0500
>> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
>> irrefutable proof
>> > From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
>> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> >
>> > Terry sez:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > >> I'm sure you could care less.
>> > >
>> > > whisper:  ". . . not care less"
>> > >
>> > > 
>> >
>> > Really? I wuz never good at grammar.
>> >
>> > Grammatically speaking I always thought it is better form to avoid
>> > cluttering up one's literary intent with the use of double negatives.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Steven Vincent Johnson
>> > www.OrionWorks.com
>> > www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>> >

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/10/12 Jed Rothwell :
> Jouni Valkonen  wrote:
>
>>
>> It had nothing to do with Rossi, but Mats Lewan was the culprit, because
>> he failed to measure all the necessary variables.
>
> 1. Lewan did the best he could under difficult circumstances.
> 2. All the necessary variables (parameters) should have been recorded on a
> computer and uploaded to the Internet in a spreadsheet. This is the 21st
> century.
> 3. The equipment configuration, especially the 20 m hose attached to the
> cooling water outlet, prevented people from confirming the outlet
> temperature. This was a grievous fault. It is the largest source of
> uncertainty.
> 4. Critical parameters should have been recorded with multiple instruments,
> with all values recorded on computer.

But if you do not have such a fancy toys around, then you have to
improvise. . .

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jed Rothwell]

Jouni Valkonen  wrote:


> It had nothing to do with Rossi, but Mats Lewan was the culprit, because he
> failed to measure all the necessary variables.


1. Lewan did the best he could under difficult circumstances.

2. All the necessary variables (parameters) should have been recorded on a
computer and uploaded to the Internet in a spreadsheet. This is the 21st
century.

3. The equipment configuration, especially the 20 m hose attached to the
cooling water outlet, prevented people from confirming the outlet
temperature. This was a grievous fault. It is the largest source of
uncertainty.

4. Critical parameters should have been recorded with multiple instruments,
with all values recorded on computer.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos calls Defkalion press release "megalomaniac"

[Jed Rothwell]

Good grief!

Here is Google translation:



Christos Stremmenos
October 11th, 2011 at 11:32 AM
By chance I learned of the release of the GT SA Defkalion (Athens 11.10.10)
and I feel a moral obligation to act in faith to my convictions have already
been made public at the time .. I supported and still support, the
impassability of the following values: scientific truth and Its contribution
anthropocentric, ... the values of culture, democracy, human civilization as
it Develops and Environmental Health, ... ... my home country, Greece is not
in Parochial , but diachronically as a figure, bearing the above values.
Megalomaniac is presumptuous of this press Defkalion GT SA ...!., Harms not
only its image, but in my opinion with obvious inaccuracies, it also damages
the cause of the prospect for a new energy ... err, especially for Greece
economically needy .
My speech is not only moralizing but also an attempt to stem the
celebrations communicative Defkalion GT SA, because I feel personally
responsible, both for the transfer of technology Rossi in Greece for the
existence of Defcalion same instrument ... implementation failure ...!. I
affirm the following:
1. You can not develop a technology if you do not know the heart in which it
is based.
2. Failure to comply with the contract for financial reasons prevented him
from having access to the crucial element is the invention of Rossi.
3. The alleged engineering concerns, perhaps, the exploitation of energy
from some old oil lamp  or similar sources ... Seriously, sketches with
the computer without a scientific basis and years of experience in the
field, can not sustain the claim of "Advanced Technology and Engineering of
the invention or inventions like ... Red! .."
4. The aluminum fins in a heat exchanger, can not be a trade secret of
Defkalion ...!., The plumbers have invented many years ago ...!. So unfair
to blame Rossi for the improper use public demonstration of these
fins Aluminum ... ... WE ARE SERIOUS! ..
I could go on the list of inaccuracies scientific / technological knowledge
and experience, recognizing certain subject tiring but clumsy attempts to
Defkalion in the economic / business to be discussed later:
• Prepared business models for expanding international Defkalion NOT HAD
ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT, THE OUTSIDE OF GREECE
AND THE BALKANS, SO HE HAS MADE AGREEMENTS OUTSIDE THE BALKANS AND GREECE
HAVE DONE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AND ABUSIVE
• Prepared the legislative procedures and certification: HOW TO HAVE
PREPARED FA Defkalion LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES FOR CERTIFICATION OF PRODUCTS,
HE HAS NEVER HAD ANY tidings THE PRODUCT, WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
FINANCIAL TERMS OF THE CONTRACT? CERTIFICATE HAS A UFO?
• Ensured a national, regional and international politics and business:
Defkalion WOULD HAVE (IF YOU HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE FINANCIAL
AGREEMENT) THE EXCLUSIVE ONLY FOR GREECE AND THE BALKANS
• Prepared overall funding: THIS 'COMEDY: THE REASON FOR WHICH THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN Defkalion AND RED AND' STATE IS YOUR CANCELLED inability 'Defkalion
TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize Defkalion THAT IS NOT GREECE
 Nor A. Xanthulis and its imaginative communication consultants .. . I
can assure you that there is also good ... the disabled in this society.
[PLUS THIS IN ENGLISH:]

Now, answering the question of why Greece became of the use of this green
revolutionary technology and why it was chosen to be leader in business
(Grecia e Balcani) but hopefully also in research and technology in this
field, let me note three basic reasons:

Our country has no primary energy sources except for lignite and
hydroelectric energy. All other means of energy, especially the renewable,
rely on imported technology, which reflects greatly on the cost of them.

The current Political Leadership of the Country was always sensitive to
innovation, especially in the field of green energy growth. The current
political leadership was aware since 2004 of this technology, the reports of
the progress of this scientific field were expected with great interest and
hope that someday there might be some practical application of this
technology.

In our country can exist Businessmen with courage and bravery, but also with
a high patriotic sense of responsibility, ready to risk and invest in such
an important technology. It is not about what we will gain from this
Homeland, but what we are ready to offer to our country, especially in these
difficult times!

Therefore, it was quite easy two years ago ,to convince my friends and
long-time working on the LENR, Rossi and Focardi that -based on the above
prerequisites- they should consider Greece as a interesting point for the
development of this technology. Naturally, the cultural aspect played also
its role; the ancient Greeks still work for us!

Christos E. Stremmenos
Professore dell’Università di Bologna (in pensione)
Già Ambasciatore di Grec

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-10-10 04:35 PM, Robert Leguillon wrote:


If someone "Couldn't care less", it means that they care so little 
that it's impossible for them to care any less than they do right now.
If someone "Could care less", it means that they care enough that it's 
possible to care less.


_*Irregardless*_, people will continue to use the phrase to the four 
corners of the earth. Supposably, it's commonplaced.


Oops.

In fact, "regardless" is the word you want there.  "Irregardless" is not 
an "official word" but if it were it would mean the opposite of what you 
intended.  (Some modern dictionaries have surrendered to the 
ungrammatical hordes and now define it as a synonym for "regardless", 
but all us nit-pickers out here know they're wrong.)






> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:24:41 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is 
irrefutable proof

> From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Terry sez:
>
> ...
>
> >> I'm sure you could care less.
> >
> > whisper:  ". . . not care less"
> >
> > 
>
> Really? I wuz never good at grammar.
>
> Grammatically speaking I always thought it is better form to avoid
> cluttering up one's literary intent with the use of double negatives.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>

[Vo]:Stremmenos calls Defkalion press release "megalomaniac"

[Sebastian F]

Hi all,

Christos Stremmenos, the director (or so) of Defkalion calls the latest 
press release by Defkalion "megalomaniac" amongst others.
Find the link here: 
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=23#comment-94994 
(hidden in the old blog entry dated January 14th).


Regards

Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jouni Valkonen]

tiistai, 11. lokakuuta 2011 Jed Rothwell  kirjoitti:
>
> It is intensely annoying that Rossi did the test in this ridiculous
> manner, forcing us to scramble to try to determine whether
> was 2 kW or 6 kW.

It had nothing to do with Rossi, but Mats Lewan was the culprit, because he
failed to measure all the necessary variables. this went exactly as I
predicted: I predicted that there is nothing to complain about the
experimental setup, but those who are observing and making measurements,
just fail to do all the relevant measurements. And indeed this was exactly
what happened. Mats Lewan forgot to pay attention to the primary circuit. He
even said that it was irrelevant! But he did not realize that he should have
calibrated the secondary loop by measuring enthalpy from primary circuit.
Calibration was easy, because E-Cat was not overflowing all the time.
Therefore it is only necessary to measure the steam mass flow from primary
circuit and assume 98% for the steam quality, because there is only steam
going to the heat exchanger and water is trapped inside E-Cat.

However, I do not see that there are significant fundamental errors,
although inaccuracy is high. The total output was something between 90 MJ
and 180 MJ. Of course there is very much heat, but still it is annoying that
we do not have that more accurate answer, although most of the potential
errors are pointing into direction that is favorable for excess heat.

By the way, pump was calibrated before the test and it pumped water some 13
kg/h. Due to pressure, it is safe to say that water inflow rate something
close to 10 kg/h. But yet again, Mats should have measured this at least few
times during the test, because back-pressure is affecting to the water flow.

   —Jouni

Ps. This tells more about how hard science is when there is no ready made
protocols available, but it is required to improvise on the site. Therefore
I do not complain Mats for being incompetent, because I know that Horace,
Jed and me would have failed in similar manner. It is just too easy to be
wise five days after the demonstration.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi: fat-cat architecure

[Jed Rothwell]

Rossi said:

The volume free for the water is about 30 liters, so that to fill up it are
> necessary about 2 hours ( the pump of the primary circuit pumps about 15
> liters per hour) . . .
>

This is confusing yet strangely helpful.

Didn't he say there are four cells in each reactor box? There are 4 pumps on
the table there. It is multiplexed. (Why not just make 4 boxes?)

Anyway, there are multiple cells and only one cell was in use during this
test.

I assume each of the 4 cells has its own reservoir, so 30 L / 4 = 7.4 L.

Let us assume the primary loop flow rate was 0.9 mL/s, and it took about 2
hours to fill up the reservoir. The graph shows no water or steam going into
the heat exchanger for 2 hours, and Rossi said 2 hours above. 2 hours * 0.9
mL/s = ~6.5 L. Close enough!

The temperature of the water is around 120°C, evidently under some pressure.
Ambient is around 20°C so . . .  120°C - 20°C * 6500 g = 650,000 calories =
2.7 MJ stored heat in the water.

Lewan's minimum estimate is 2 kW. 2.7 MJ / 2,000 J/s means all of the stored
heat in the water must be extracted by the cooling water flow in 23 minutes,
less time than it takes to replace all the water. It would have to magically
surrender all 2.7 MJ and be room temperature 23 minutes after the power goes
off. Yet 4 hours after it went off, the water was still boiling, the reactor
surface was still hot, and the hose was still hot enough to burn someone.

Krivit thinks the water "stored" 33 MJ, which magically came out twice as
shown by the calorimetry: once before heat after death, and again during
it. I guess Maxwell's Demon turns those megajoules around and pushes them
right back in to the water. Anyway, assuming I am correct about the volume
of the reservoir the temperature of that water would be 1230°C.

- Jed

[Vo]:Rossi: fat-cat architecure

[Alan J Fletcher]

Andrea Rossi 

October 11th, 2011 at 12:41 PM 
Dear Gunnar Lindberg:
All the box containing the reactor is filled with water. The reactor
wafer is cm 20 x 20 x 4 (external dimensions), and to it are welded all
the steel wings necessary to exchange all the heat produced inside the
reactor. When we disassembled the E-Cat all the attendants have seen that
all the box around the reactor is just a water box, filled of steel wings
and water. The water had been taken off, after the cooling, so with a
torchlight it has been easy to observe that all the box outside the
reactor is a water tank. The water enters from the bottom of the box,
evaporates and goes out as steam from the top of the box. Therefore is
absolutely impossible to insert any fuel, because it could be mixed with
the water, and obviously could not burn. There is not air inside, just
water and steam. As for the reactor, it is tight and waterproof. The
volume free for the water is about 30 liters, so that to fill up it are
necessary about 2 hours ( the pump of the primary circuit pumps about 15
liters per hour), but, as a matter of fact, the water begins to evaporate
before the box is full of water, so usually the “Effect” of the reactor
starts before 2 hours.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
(So it's definitely more of a kettle boiler than a tube boiler.)

RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

SVJ responded:
"OTOH, to be fair to BLP, it's my understanding that the facility is not
financially structured to creating prototypes for industry and consumers.
Just proof-of-concept experimental devices that aren't in their own right
something that can be commercialized - not without a lot of expensive R&D
engineering involved. BLP doesn't possess sufficient cash reserves for that
kind of operation. It's through the licensing of their research findings
that they hope to cash in when others sign up with licensing fees and
subsequently start paying royalties."

Yes, BLP's business model is the same as the startup I've been with for
several years, namely, technology/IP development, not manufacturing.  We
develop the technologies, patent them, but then license the IP to
manufacturers.  So my comment "why doesn't Mills focus on one thing and
finish it" means, "Why doesn't Mills get at least ONE technology licensed
off to someone who WILL get it to market."

The license agreements with several entities that BLP has announced have
gone nowhere... i.e., those licensees are expecting a completed device, and
are not expected to do the engineering to make a low-cost, mass produced
product.  So what good are those licensees except to generate interest when
BLP has run out of $ and needs to raise more?

"... not without a lot of expensive R&D engineering involved. BLP doesn't
possess sufficient cash reserves for that kind of operation."

Have to disagree... Mills has raised well over $60M and has been at it for
20+ yrs, and that is more than enough $ and time to have focused on ONE
product, and complete it to the point where someone one willing to come in
and complete the design and begin manufacturing. On the other hand, he does
have the molecular modeling software that they at least have productized,
but I don't know how well it works nor how much revenue it generates... 

I think the most likely explanation is that Mills is wed to his theoretical
framework and instead of accepting that it has led them down non-productive
paths and wasted time and investor's $, he continues to follow it, but then
thinks of a different way to apply the theory and off he goes down another
doomed R&D path.
 
Just venting...
-Mark

[Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn wrote:

And you don't know if the water level in the huge reactor reservoir is 
rising or falling.  And you know that there are big problems with the 
secondary loop calorimetry not remotely matching the primary in the 
one instance (Mat's walk around video) where we know the primary 
power.  Give up, Rossi has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of 
victory yet again.


I agree. That is a nice turn of phrase, and it describes the situation 
well. In many important ways he did. Look at Lewan's report. Lewan 
cannot tell whether the heat flux was 2, 3 or  6 kW. What kind of test 
is that?!? Look at the thermocouple meter. It can hold 4 k-type 
thermocouples. Only two were used. Rossi might have installed 1 or 2 
more, installed a plastic T fitting in the hose, and then measured the 
water temperature downstream. That meter can record on an SD card. He 
might have recorded all temperatures, giving us a complete data set from 
the inlet at one location, and the outlet at two or three locations.


There are dozens of things Rossi might have done to reduce the confusion 
and to produce ironclad proof that no rational person would question. By 
any reasonable, conventional standard, this test was a fiasco. If Rossi 
was an undergraduate I would give him no better than a C. As I told 
Rossi himself, he was sloppy and his attitude expresses contempt for the 
people who came hundreds of miles to observe the experiment.


HOWEVER, you must not overlook fundamental physics and first principle 
proof. Do not miss the forest for the trees! The reactor continued 
boiling for four hours. The reactor surface remained at ~80°C. A person 
touching the outlet hose four hours after the power was cut jumped away 
because the hose was so hot. There is no question that this reactor 
continued to produce massive levels of heat long after the power was 
cut. That is physically impossible unless there was kilowatt-levels of 
heat being produced inside it.


Yes, it may be impossible for us to ever determine whether there were 2 
kW or 6 kW of heat being generated. But to assert that because the 
results are so inaccurate that the answer must be 0 kW (no heat) is 
outlandish and grotesque ignorance. To assert, as Krivit did, that 33 MJ 
was "saved up" and came out of the machine twice (during the warm up and 
again during heat after death) is a claim from the far reaches of cloud 
cuckoo land. Nothing Rossi has said or done is 0.001% as crazy as that, 
or the other assertions being made here that you can boil water for four 
hours in a machine of this description with no power input, or that heat 
can magically defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


It is intensely annoying that Rossi did the test in this ridiculous 
manner, forcing us to scramble to try to determine whether was 2 kW or 6 
kW. But you must not let your annoyance interfere with your analysis of 
the facts. Do not throw up your hands and declare "there was no heat!" 
because of the way Rossi acts. This is physics, not a beauty contest. 
Behavior does not count.


That was anomalous nonchemical heat. There is no chance there was a 
hidden wire or hidden source of chemical heat.


People who are obsessed about the poor quality of the instrumentation 
and data collection and the poorly positioned thermocouple are missing 
the point. You can ignore all quantitative data from this experiment. 
You can assume the worst case scenario for the outlet thermocouple 
placement problem. Yet _despite all that_, you can still be absolutely 
certain it was producing anomalous heat. It resembles Fleischmann's heat 
after death boil off experiments which do not require any numerical 
analysis to be certain they show anomalous heat. The appearance of the 
experiment alone is enough to tell you it is working.


Actually, the most elegant and best physics experiments are like this. 
They are self-evident without the need for numeric analysis. The 
configuration, appearance and behavior constitute proof of the claim. 
From that point of view, Rossi's test was excellent.


My impression is that numerical analysis is not Rossi preferred mode of 
thinking. He is an old fashioned hands-on inventor, like Edison. Edison 
had a stronger grasp of theory than he let on, or than many people 
credit him. But he did not like numerical analysis. When Edison and his 
team were trying work out how to build the world's first power stations 
and distribution network in Manhattan, around 1880, Edison assigned the 
job to an old German physicist. (I think he was German.) The old guy 
promptly set about making a physical scale model of downtown Manhattan, 
stringing little copper wires around and measuring resistance. A 
younger, formally trained physicist who understood the laws of 
electricity better than Edison and his cronies saw that and was 
"horrified." He modeled the network mathematically and determine how 
much wire of what gauge would be needed. This was a better method but it 
wa

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Axil Axil]

“As already speculated by a few here, Rossi continues to give me the
impression that he operates very much on intuition. Recording scientific
data is almost incidental to him, a characteristic I suspect probably drives
a few of his colleagues to distraction. “

After watching Rossi for some months now, it looks to me like he is the
quintessential edistonian trial and error development type of guy. He learns
by doing. It might be that he is learning how to do demos by trial and
error. After about a dozen more demos he may get his act together and come
up with a demo that is generally acceptable to the majority.

He doesn’t take the time required to plan things because he is working
mostly in the dark of a largely unknown technology.

He operates in a “mouse in a maze” methodology; what the software people
case a rapid prototyping mode.


It must drive the thoughtful planers amongst his colleagues and many of us
here amongst our number right up a wall.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:12 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>  Thanks for the analysis, Jed. Will be interesting to read what others
> have to say.
>
> ** **
>
> BTW, what did Rossi have to say?
>
> ** **
>
> * * * * *
>
> ** **
>
> When I look at the graph I continue to be drawn to the curious fact that
> the input power is cycled on and off a total of three or four times starting
> from around 13:59 to finally ending at 15:50 when it is permanently turned
> off. Looks to me as if Rossi's team may have been trying to get their eCat
> airborne way before the time stamp of 15:50.
>
> ** **
>
> My apologies if the following has already been discussed or speculated
> since there has been so much discussion in the past three days – I can't
> keep track of it all. The characteristics of the input data gives me the
> impression that Rossi's team is trying to capitalize on what I would
> describe as the "Sweet Spot", where Rossi feels that the core reaction is
> finally beginning to take off without further need for an input power source
> to sustain the output reaction. It's analogous to the Wright Brothers hand
> cranking the propeller of their first air craft where the first couple of
> spins don't necessarily catch on with the engine.
>
> ** **
>
> As already speculated by a few here, Rossi continues to give me the
> impression that he operates very much on intuition. Recording scientific
> data is almost incidental to him, a characteristic I suspect probably drives
> a few of his colleagues to distraction. Rossi has probably acquired a
> reasonable amount of instinctual "horse sense" as to when he thinks his
> mysterious eCats are likely to take off in self-sustain mode. 
>
> ** **
>
> The following is what I speculate is happening between 13:59 to 15:50:
>
> ** **
>
> Rossi initially tries at 13:59... *It's catching It's catching... Ah,
> shoot! It petered out. Ok guys! Crank her up again.* Input Power turned
> back on 14:11.
>
> ** **
>
> Rossi tries again at around 14:24... *Well, Shoot. Still didn't catch!
> Maybe I need to prime the pistons. Where's my canister of Ether. Ok guys.
> Crank her up again.* Input power turned back on at 14:36
>
> ** **
>
> Looks like Rossi tries for the third time at around 14:48, but I suspect
> the there are data anomalies here (human error?) and Rossi actually turns
> off the input power at around 15:00. It's turning... It's turning... *Come
> on! Come on You can do it Shoot it's going down again. We're close
> guys! I can feel it in my ancient Italian bones! Ok, let's crank'er up
> again.* Input Power turned back on at 15:25.
>
> ** **
>
> For the fourth time, Rossi turns off the input power around 15:50.
> Meanwhile the output signal has been strong and rapidly rising starting at
> around 15:40 or so. Rossi’s Italian bones sense that this is probably the
> Big One. …*TURN THE INPUT POWER OFF Got it! Hand me my goggles, guys!
> It's Steam Punk Rock'N'Role time!*
>
> ** **
>
> Here are some final personal interpretations:
>
> ** **
>
> It looks to me as if in every case input power is turned off several
> minutes after the Rossi "senses" that the output power is on a steady rise
> (in self-sustain mode) towards the 3000 mark and above. 
>
> ** **
>
> I wonder if Rossi may have initially been trying to hit that sweet spot
> early in the data recordings starting at 13:59. Perhaps he initially turned
> input power off back then in order to help minimize the potential of
> introducing skeptical arguments such as those presented over at Krivit's
> blog having to do with the total accumulation of input power from the start
> of the experiment and how the entire collection of data appears to be
> greater than the total accumulation of recorded output power. In any case,
> it looks to me as if Rossi had three false starts before he finally hit pay
> dirt on the fourth crank.
>
> ** **
>
> Comments?
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Peter Heckert]

Am 11.10.2011 21:12, schrieb Horace Heffner:

I wonder how a pump with a maximum flow rate of 12 liters/hr could
pump 15 liters/hr?

Quite often values given in datasheets are not hard limits.
Possibly it can do this, but is not specified for this.
This would mean it cannot reach the specified pressure and/or precision 
at this rate.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Horace Heffner]

I am way behind on reading. I hope this is not redundant.

It appears the same pump is being used 6 Oct 2011 as in all the prior  
tests.  See:


http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece

I wonder what the 4 pumps are for?  Eventually pumping water into the  
heat exchanger?  That would be excellent, if the flow rate could be  
reduced, and highly controlled. It appears there is tubing on the  
pumps.  Could the pumps have been used in an earlier test and discarded?


At 2:37 the old yellow pump can be seen. It appears it was used to  
pump the E-cat input water as usual.


At 0:21 in video "at this point we have been going for several hours".
"One hour or so ago we went into self sustained mode."

At this point in the Lewan video I counted 41 strokes per minute of  
the pump. Based on Matiia Rizzi's comments below, that is a maximum  
flow rate of (41 str/min)*(2 ml/Str)*(1 min)/(60 sec) = 1.37 ml/sec,  
or 4.9 liters per hour.


I wonder how a pump with a maximum flow rate of 12 liters/hr could  
pump 15 liters/hr?



On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:



Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/? 
p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236


Peter Heckert
October 10th, 2011 at 1:17 AM
Mr. Rossi,

Could you tell the primary flow rate of the peristaltic pump?
Unfortunately this was not documented.
From this we could get an optimistic upper limit for the energy  
generated, if we assume all water was vaporized.




Andrea Rossi
October 10th, 2011 at 4:48 AM
Dear Peter Heckert:
Good question.
The primary circuit flow rate has been 15 kg/h of water.
Warm Regards,
A.R.



On Aug 23, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:


And the water flow can’t be 7 liter/h since the pump is pumping  
every 2.5-3 seconds, so the true water flow is lower than 3 liter/h
LMI P18 pump has a maximum flow of 12 l/h at 100 strikes/minutes.  
With 25 strikes/minute is  (maximum) 3 l/h. It can be lower than 3  
liter/h.




On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:

Again, if you write “7 l/h flow” you are talking about the test  
done in june, with Krivit.
In june, there wan’t a weight scale, only a “Rossi said” that he  
controlled the flow by weighting it. But is a “Rossi said”.
What we really know is the pump used, an LMI P18, and we know that  
the maximum flow is 12 l/h at 100 strokes/min.
Since you can hear in Krivit video that the pump is stroking every  
2.5-3 seconds, according to the manual the maximu flow rate  
achievable with 25 strokes/min is 3 liter/h. That’s a fact, not a  
“Rossi said”.



On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote:


It’s a dosimetric pump.
In every stroke it can inject a maximum volume of 2ml of water  
(volume is regulable)

It’s regulable from 20 to 100 strokes/minute.
So with a 100 strokes/min and a volume of 2ml, the pump  is running  
witha  flow of 12 liter/h.
With 25 strokes/min, the pump is running up to 3liter/h (but it can  
be lower since volume is adjustable).



kind regards,
Peter






Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Leguillon wrote:

Where did they increase? They never went up in the E-Cat, only remained pretty 
darned steady (pegged to boiling point, slowly decreasing).


The temperature in the eCat cannot go up because it is boiling water at 
a little more than 1 atm. It can boil away the water faster, but not at 
a higher temperature.


The temperatures went up in the secondary loop outlet thermocouple, 
which may actually be some value between the inlet steam and outlet, 
because it was poorly placed. That would make no difference; you could 
use any temperature in the heat exchanger except the first few 
centimeters of the inlet steam pipe. The temperature in heat exchanger 
reflects the overall heat flux from the eCat.


See:

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg

At 15:50 the temperature increases after the power is cut. That is 
impossible without heat generation. It falls around 16:14, but it rises 
again at 16:26. Again, that is impossible without heat generation.


It can only fall, like this:

https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffcalc/ozone/ozone1.html

The slope of that curb will depend upon the amount of insulation, the 
flow rate and other factors. However, the direction is fixed: it must go 
down. Never up.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher wrote:



Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236 
 



That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded  0.9 (stable) and 1.9 (cool-down).


This is why you need instruments recording flow rates to a computer. The 
confusion is permanent. As I said, we shall not get to the bottom of 
things like this. How annoying!



I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- 
it doesn't show in any of the videos.


The pump was shown in some of the videos. It is the same old pump piston 
type pump he has been using all along. It was pumping water from a large 
garbage can on the floor into the reactor.


Whatever the flow rate was 4.17 or 0.9 . . . It seems the primary loop 
flow rate was about the same throughout the test. People have done 
spotchecks of the sound of the pump. Assuming this flow rate was stable, 
it looks to me like it took maybe two hours to fill the reactor when the 
test began. So that means, an hour after the heat after death began, 
cold water equal to half the volume of the reservoir would have flowed 
into it. That is not to say that of volume of exactly half the original 
hot water would be driven out. The cold water mixes as it comes in.  It 
works like a US domestic water heater, where tap water water flows in as 
hot water flows out. In this case it would be like a water heater with 
the power turned off. You cannot replace half the volume of a water tank 
without the temperature falling. The temperature only falls; it cannot rise.


Bear in mind also that the reactor was not that well insulated and the 
surface of it remained at roughly 80°C the entire four hours. Obviously 
it was radiating a great deal of heat.


If the primary loop flow rate was increased, the secondary loop would 
get warmer for a while, but the flow of incoming Water would increase 
and the reservoir would get colder faster.


There is absolutely no way you could have boiling continue in a 
reservoir for four hours while tap water flows in and replaces at least 
twice the volume of that reservoir.


- Jed

[Vo]:Horace Heffner report

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:37 AM 10/11/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:  .. 
In the section :
NO HEAT TRANSFER TO HEAT EXCHANGER UNTIL
13:22
19:22: "Measured outflow of
primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be
345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2
°C."
you're using the flow after it was increased to cool down the
system.  
You should use  Lewan's 0.9 g/s .. (or the pump's 2ml * 40
strokes/minute = 1.33 g/s)
0.91 * 7800 seconds = 7.1 litres.  
This system supposedly has one eCat, while Lewan's Sept version had two
or three, and needed 25 litres to start overflowing, so this data is more
consistent than most that we've seen from October.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Robert Lynn]

And you don't know if the water level in the huge reactor reservoir is
rising or falling.  And you know that there are big problems with the
secondary loop calorimetry not remotely matching the primary in the one
instance (Mat's walk around video) where we know the primary power.  Give
up, Rossi has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

On 11 October 2011 19:16, Robert Leguillon wrote:

>  I forgot to mention. In the September test, before the pump was hooked
> up, they measure 15.8 kg/hr (4.38g/s) consumption.  Once connected to the
> E-Cat, it dropped to 13.76 kg/hr (3.8g/s), then at boiling, it dropped to
> 11.08 kg/hr (3.07g/s).  This is just to demonstrate that the pump does not
> have consistent performance in the presence of any resistance.  For
> calculations, we cannot rely on this flow rate, because the
> September/October tests may not entirely correlate.
> In the Mats Lewan report, the output of the primary side of the heat
> exchanger was measured at onyl .91 g/s and 1.9 g/s (when turned up for
> quenching). As the heat exchanger was probably receiving a water/steam mix,
> though, even these measurements may be unreliable.
>
>  --
> From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:02:37 -0500
>
>
>  The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it
> right.
> They were filling the E-Cat from a reservoir, and after it was boiling,
> they gave us the net weight of water in the input reservoir at 21:07, then
> logged every time water was added, and provided us a final weight.
>
> *
>
> Water flow inlet
>
> *Added water during start up, from 18:30: 15640 + 9380 + 9473 + 9959 =
> 44452 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir when the temperature inside
> the E-cat reached 100°C at 21:07: 8431 grams. Consumed in 2:37 hours (2.62
> hours): 36021 grams Flow during start-up: 13.76 kg/hour
> Added water from 21:07: 8431 + 10089 + 10460 + 6591 + 9960 = 45531 grams.
> Remaining in the inlet reservoir at 23:10: 22823 grams. Consumed in 2:03
> hours (2.05 hours): 22708 grams Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour.
> Total running time >100°C: 2:05 (2.08) hours
> Total flow >100 degrees (from 21:05): 23.0 kg
>
> IMPORTANT: In the September test, there is no reference to "increasing
> flow" at the end, they just turn the pump off.  This begs the question if
> the September test had the pump running at full capacity.  If so, the rate
> seen during Septembers operation of 11.08 kg/hr (3.1 g/sec) would be EVEN
> LOWER during the October test. We know for a fact that the October test, the
> pump was not running at full capacity, because they specifically stated that
> the increased the flow during quenching.
>
> Obviously, the pump does not put out consistent pressure, as seen in the
> September test.  Was it slowed down for the October test? Was it harder to
> push through the heat exchanger, across the floor, under the doormat, then
> up into the drain, than the September test?
>
> If the placement of the thermocouples on the heat exchanger cause us to
> throw out that temperature data, and the E-Cat calorimetry is plagued with
> phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand?
>  --
>  Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
> From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output
> 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar
>
>
> So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's
> numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.
>
> 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW
> recorded on the secondary.
>
>
> http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf
> If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the
> videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow
> rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.
>

RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Robert Leguillon]

I forgot to mention. In the September test, before the pump was hooked up, they 
measure 15.8 kg/hr (4.38g/s) consumption.  Once connected to the E-Cat, it 
dropped to 13.76 kg/hr (3.8g/s), then at boiling, it dropped to 11.08 kg/hr 
(3.07g/s).  This is just to demonstrate that the pump does not have consistent 
performance in the presence of any resistance.  For calculations, we cannot 
rely on this flow rate, because the September/October tests may not entirely 
correlate.  
In the Mats Lewan report, the output of the primary side of the heat exchanger 
was measured at onyl .91 g/s and 1.9 g/s (when turned up for quenching). As the 
heat exchanger was probably receiving a water/steam mix, though, even these 
measurements may be unreliable.
 




From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:02:37 -0500






The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it right.
They were filling the E-Cat from a reservoir, and after it was boiling, they 
gave us the net weight of water in the input reservoir at 21:07, then logged 
every time water was added, and provided us a final weight.
 

Water flow inlet 
Added water during start up, from 18:30: 15640 + 9380 + 9473 + 9959 = 44452 
grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir when the temperature inside the E-cat 
reached 100°C at 21:07: 8431 grams. Consumed in 2:37 hours (2.62 hours): 36021 
grams Flow during start-up: 13.76 kg/hour 
Added water from 21:07: 8431 + 10089 + 10460 + 6591 + 9960 = 45531 grams. 
Remaining in the inlet reservoir at 23:10: 22823 grams. Consumed in 2:03 hours 
(2.05 hours): 22708 grams Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour. 
Total running time >100°C: 2:05 (2.08) hours 
Total flow >100 degrees (from 21:05): 23.0 kg 
 
IMPORTANT: In the September test, there is no reference to "increasing flow" at 
the end, they just turn the pump off.  This begs the question if the September 
test had the pump running at full capacity.  If so, the rate seen during 
Septembers operation of 11.08 kg/hr (3.1 g/sec) would be EVEN LOWER during the 
October test. We know for a fact that the October test, the pump was not 
running at full capacity, because they specifically stated that the increased 
the flow during quenching.
 
Obviously, the pump does not put out consistent pressure, as seen in the 
September test.  Was it slowed down for the October test? Was it harder to push 
through the heat exchanger, across the floor, under the doormat, then up into 
the drain, than the September test?
 
If the placement of the thermocouples on the heat exchanger cause us to throw 
out that temperature data, and the E-Cat calorimetry is plagued with 
phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand?




Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 
liters/h Max press 1.50 bar 




So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers 
as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.

12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW 
recorded on the secondary.

http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf
If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos 
about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is 
because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke. 
  

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Robert Lynn]

I'd say that this Demo has been totaly Rossied.  ;)

On 11 October 2011 19:02, Robert Leguillon wrote:

>  The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it
> right.
> They were filling the E-Cat from a reservoir, and after it was boiling,
> they gave us the net weight of water in the input reservoir at 21:07, then
> logged every time water was added, and provided us a final weight.
>
> *
>
> Water flow inlet
>
> *Added water during start up, from 18:30: 15640 + 9380 + 9473 + 9959 =
> 44452 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir when the temperature inside
> the E-cat reached 100°C at 21:07: 8431 grams. Consumed in 2:37 hours (2.62
> hours): 36021 grams Flow during start-up: 13.76 kg/hour
> Added water from 21:07: 8431 + 10089 + 10460 + 6591 + 9960 = 45531 grams.
> Remaining in the inlet reservoir at 23:10: 22823 grams. Consumed in 2:03
> hours (2.05 hours): 22708 grams Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour.
> Total running time >100°C: 2:05 (2.08) hours
> Total flow >100 degrees (from 21:05): 23.0 kg
>
> IMPORTANT: In the September test, there is no reference to "increasing
> flow" at the end, they just turn the pump off.  This begs the question if
> the September test had the pump running at full capacity.  If so, the rate
> seen during Septembers operation of 11.08 kg/hr (3.1 g/sec) would be EVEN
> LOWER during the October test. We know for a fact that the October test, the
> pump was not running at full capacity, because they specifically stated that
> the increased the flow during quenching.
>
> Obviously, the pump does not put out consistent pressure, as seen in the
> September test.  Was it slowed down for the October test? Was it harder to
> push through the heat exchanger, across the floor, under the doormat, then
> up into the drain, than the September test?
>
> If the placement of the thermocouples on the heat exchanger cause us to
> throw out that temperature data, and the E-Cat calorimetry is plagued with
> phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand?
>  --
>  Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100
>
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
> From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
>
> Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output
> 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar
>
>
> So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's
> numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.
>
> 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW
> recorded on the secondary.
>
>
> http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf
> If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the
> videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow
> rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:59 AM 10/11/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 10:26 AM 10/11/2011, Robert
Lynn wrote:
Peristaltic pump NSF Model #
CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50
bar 

So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take
Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.
12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak
7.6 kW recorded on the secondary.


http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf
If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the
videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow
rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.

Somebody said 40 strokes a minute (it's audible in Lewan's video) ...
which makes 1.33 g /sec (4.8 l/hr) - fairly close to Lewan's 0.9 
And there's probably some back-pressure.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow dataRobert
Lynn
Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:18:34 -0700
During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same
LMI P18
pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making
124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar)

http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would
suggest at
maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure.

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece

RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Robert Leguillon]

The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it right.
They were filling the E-Cat from a reservoir, and after it was boiling, they 
gave us the net weight of water in the input reservoir at 21:07, then logged 
every time water was added, and provided us a final weight.
 


Water flow inlet 
Added water during start up, from 18:30: 15640 + 9380 + 9473 + 9959 = 44452 
grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir when the temperature inside the E-cat 
reached 100°C at 21:07: 8431 grams. Consumed in 2:37 hours (2.62 hours): 36021 
grams Flow during start-up: 13.76 kg/hour 
Added water from 21:07: 8431 + 10089 + 10460 + 6591 + 9960 = 45531 grams. 
Remaining in the inlet reservoir at 23:10: 22823 grams. Consumed in 2:03 hours 
(2.05 hours): 22708 grams Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour. 
Total running time >100°C: 2:05 (2.08) hours 
Total flow >100 degrees (from 21:05): 23.0 kg 
 
IMPORTANT: In the September test, there is no reference to "increasing flow" at 
the end, they just turn the pump off.  This begs the question if the September 
test had the pump running at full capacity.  If so, the rate seen during 
Septembers operation of 11.08 kg/hr (3.1 g/sec) would be EVEN LOWER during the 
October test. We know for a fact that the October test, the pump was not 
running at full capacity, because they specifically stated that the increased 
the flow during quenching.
 
Obviously, the pump does not put out consistent pressure, as seen in the 
September test.  Was it slowed down for the October test? Was it harder to push 
through the heat exchanger, across the floor, under the doormat, then up into 
the drain, than the September test?
 
If the placement of the thermocouples on the heat exchanger cause us to throw 
out that temperature data, and the E-Cat calorimetry is plagued with 
phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand?




Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 
liters/h Max press 1.50 bar 




So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers 
as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.

12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW 
recorded on the secondary.

http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf
If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos 
about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is 
because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke. 
  

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:26 AM 10/11/2011, Robert Lynn wrote:
Peristaltic pump NSF Model #
CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50
bar 



So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take
Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.

12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak
7.6 kW recorded on the secondary.



http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf
If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the
videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow
rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.

Somebody said 40 strokes a minute (it's audible in Lewan's video) ...
which makes 1.33 g /sec (4.8 l/hr) - fairly close to Lewan's 0.9 
And there's probably some back-pressure.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Raymond Zreick]

Hy Daniel.



@Daniel Rocha

> Your testimony of Rossi's presentation and opinions will be very valuable
to our discussions!

@Alan Fletcher

> Some of us are still trying to figure out what happened in the
demonstration.  It will be good to have first-hand information.



Yes, but mine are only impressions.

I have not collected technical data and those of Lewan (which I think has
done a good job, painstaking and precise) are already subject to too many
discussions.

On the E-Cat test I'm working to post video interviews (thursday), videos of
some details of the set-up unpackaged in the evening and a number of
previously unpublished photo.



===

Raymond Zreick, Focus/Focus.it

http://www.focus.it

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Robert Lynn]

Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0
liters/h Max press 1.50 bar

>
> So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's
> numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.
>
> 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW
> recorded on the secondary.
>

http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf
If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the
videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow
rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 10:13 AM 10/11/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
2011/10/11 Raymond Zreick

Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick,
journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is my first message in this
mailing list. 
Welcome to Vortex !  
Some of us are still trying to figure out what happened in the
demonstration.  It will be good to have first-hand
information.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Daniel Rocha]

Welcome Raymond!

Your testimony of Rossi's presentation and opinions will be very valuable to
our discussions!

2011/10/11 Raymond Zreick 

> Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick, journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is
> my first message in this mailing list.
>
>
>
> @Alan
>
> > I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic)
>
> > it doesn't show in any of the videos.
>
>
>
> peristaltic
>
> It is also in the Lewan's technical report.
>
> I have some pictures of the room where the test was done, I'll put them
> online (maybe tomorrow, but I'm not sure).
>
>
>
> ===
>
> Raymond Zreick, Focus/Focus.it
>
> http://www.focus.it
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 09:51 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:37, schrieb
Alan J Fletcher: 
At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter
Heckert wrote:
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236
 
That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded  0.9 (stable) and 1.9
(cool-down).It could be, the e-cat was throwing out water in
chunks. 
Easy to imagine, if it boils.
Then Lewans measurement is not representative.
> I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic)
-- it doesn't show in any of the videos.
The pump is specified in Lewans report. It has a maximum  of 12
kg/h.
This similar in an earlier demonstration. Possibly they exchanged the
pump peristaltic hose, then it is possible.
Peristaltic pump NSF Model #
CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50
bar 
So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take
Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.
12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6
kW recorded on the secondary.
It could be, the e-cat was
throwing out water in chunks. 
Yes, we still have to explain the variability of the secondary output
(Horace Heffner's slug hypothesis), which matches the 50% water 50% steam
we had in September.
Still ... the numbers just don't add up.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Raymond Zreick]

Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick, journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is
my first message in this mailing list.



@Alan

> I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic)

> it doesn't show in any of the videos.



peristaltic

It is also in the Lewan's technical report.

I have some pictures of the room where the test was done, I'll put them
online (maybe tomorrow, but I'm not sure).



===

Raymond Zreick, Focus/Focus.it

http://www.focus.it

Re: [Vo]:Considering errors in enthalpy calculations

[Jouni Valkonen]

In the end of demonstration the amount of water was measured from the
primary loop output. It was 0.9 g/s and few moments later it was 1.9 g/s.
This does not correspond well into water inflow rate that was calibrated
before the demo into 13 kg/h or 3.6 g/s. As referring into September test,
we can assume that water inflow rate was slightly lower due to internal
pressure of E-Cat. Something like 2.8 g/s.

This water inflow rate however can compensate only 6-7 kW power output,
where as heating power was probably somewhat higher, if all the heat losses
are considered. This means that water level inside E-Cat was lower than
overflowing and when the measurements were made, only steam was escaping.
When the first measurement was made, ΔT in secondary loop did not show high
power output. Only around 3 kW and mass flow of steam was 2 kW. In the
second measurement power output was measured around 5 kW and mass flow of
steam was corresponding to 4 kW.

This explains well why mass flow in primary loop was so low when it was
measured. Only high quality steam was escaping the E-Cat, because water
level inside E-Cat was low due to previous higher power output that probably
exceeded 6 kW or water inflow rate. This is no problem in short
demonstration, because E-Cat can store up to 30 kg water and this can
support boiling several hours before E-Cat is going to boil dry. E-Cat can
buffer 20 kW power output for an hour with 10 kg/h inflow rate, before it is
boiling dry.

This tells something how important it would have been, if the proper control
checks of water flowrate had been made in the input and out put of primary
loop.

 —Jouni

tiistai, 11. lokakuuta 2011 Jouni Valkonen 
kirjoitti:
> I have not had time to read all the messages today, but I was thinking
about the known error sources.
>
> 1) The heat exchanger efficiency cannot be no more than 90%. That is
because, the surface area of E-Cat and hose to heat exchanger was in total
about 1.3 m². We do not know the surface temperature but if it was 60-85°C,
that would be some 300-800 watt heat loss. Therefore 80-90% is reasonable
quess for efficiency and in joules this takes 15-20 MJ. We still need to
assume that heat were not escaped from the primary loop into drain.
>
> 2) Most of the energy of electricity went into preheating E-Cat (ΔT=75°C).
100 kg metal and 25-30 kg water takes about 18 MJ energy that does not show
as output, because none of that heat energy makes it into the heat
exchanger. Therefore this heat must be added to the total heat output of
E-Cat.
>
> These are quite significant errors and both are known. Therefore they add
up to 40 MJ to the total output that was estimated to be 100-120 MJ.
Therefore total output was perhaps as high as 160 MJ. This means that if
excess heat was provided by chemical energy, it is required 10 liters of
thermite to be burned inside E-Cat. I think that this is significant to
consider these rather well known error sources. At least they offer decent
buffer, if there are errors in heat exchanger's ΔT due to too high water
flow rate in secondary loop.
>
> Also, does Mats have good guesses, what was the reasonable water inflow
rate into device? Was it the same as in September (11-13 kg/h)? If water
inflow rate is known, this gives certain limits how well E-Cat can support
boiling. And is there anyway to estimate the surface temperature of E-Cat?
>
>   —Jouni
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 09:37 AM 10/11/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter
Heckert wrote:
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236
 
That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded  0.9 (stable) and 1.9
(cool-down).
I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- it
doesn't show in any of the videos.
Lewan's September results -- using the same fat-cat box (except Rossi
said it contained multiple eCats)  --- 
Flow 13 l/hour -- which isn't far off Rossi's reported 15 l/hour -- but
WAY off Lewan's 0.9 g/s
13 or 15 l/hour would allow 9.4 or 10.8 kW of 1 bar 120 C
superheated  steam to reach the heat exchanger, and is in line with
what was measured.
Lewan's 0.9 g /s = 3.2  l/hr can only deliver 2.4 kW

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Peter Heckert]

Am 11.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:

At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:

Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236 
 



That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded  0.9 (stable) and 1.9 (cool-down).

It could be, the e-cat was throwing out water in chunks.
Easy to imagine, if it boils.

Then Lewans measurement is not representative.
> I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) 
-- it doesn't show in any of the videos.


The pump is specified in Lewans report. It has a maximum  of 12 kg/h.
This similar in an earlier demonstration. Possibly they exchanged the 
pump peristaltic hose, then it is possible.

RE: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Robert Leguillon]

Where did they increase? They never went up in the E-Cat, only remained pretty 
darned steady (pegged to boiling point, slowly decreasing).
The only increases were seen in the secondary, and those numbers MUST be wrong, 
or entire flow in the primary would have been vaporized, and been massively 
superheated.
The fluctuations seen in the secondary can be explained by water vs. Steam 
alternating at the steam-side input of the thermocouple. Steam has a lower 
specific heat, so it warms the connections less than slugs of passing hot water.

Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint  wrote:

>Both Harry and Robert are missing Jed's point... 
>
>In order for their thermos analogy to be a proper analogy, it would have to
>say this:
>
>Take a Thermos bottle and insert a thermocouple about 1/3rd of the way into
>it.
>Pour in boiling water to fill up the thermos to 1/2 way. The steam generated
>from the boiling water causes the TC to increase its temperature reading.
>Give the thermocouple about 5 minutes to stabilize.  What is going to happen
>to the TC readings from now on, even as the boiling continues?
>
>If you want, pour some more boiling water, perhaps thru a tube so you don't
>touch the TC, and see if the TC readings increase significantly.
>
>Jed (via Newton) is saying that the TC readings will not increase
>significantly as seen in the E-Cat.
>  
>-Mark
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:17 AM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible
>assertions about stored heat
>
>Pour some boiling water into a thermos. For how long does the water
>continue to boil?
>Harry
>
>On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Robert Leguillon
> wrote:
>> Jed,
>> Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.
>> Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping. 
>If
>> you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you.  Make a
>> scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a Thermos. See how long it
>> takes to cool.
>> Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee.
>> People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container
>> specifically designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal
>> exceeding 124C (after all, they must be hotter than the water to heat it)
>> has stored energy.
>> Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was
>> about 20 liters of water.  At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than 6
>> hours to replace the water in the E-Cat.
>> Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot.
>> You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for
>"violating
>> the laws of physics."
>> The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary,
>> which necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and
>the
>> changes seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat.
>> The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect.  If the measurements
>> are correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to
>rise.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236

That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded  0.9 (stable) and 1.9
(cool-down).
I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- it
doesn't show in any of the videos.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Robert Leguillon]

Pump capacity and pump stroke contradict 15 kg / hour. The observers twice 
collected the output, and it was .91 g/s during operation, and still under 2 
g/s after it was sped up during quenching.
See Robert Lynn's calculations below, with manufacturer and video reference, or 
just look at the Ny Teknik report for the measurements that were taken at the 
heat exchanger primary-side output.


Peter Heckert  wrote:

>Am 11.10.2011 16:01, schrieb Colin Hercus:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 
>> 124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly 
>> well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to 
>> possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at 
>> least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures.
>>
>> The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C 
>> which requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that 
>> 0.9g/sec of steam at 124C has.
>>
>> I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of 
>> 11kg/hr.  I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate 
>> for the October test..
>>
>Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
>http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236
>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon 
>> mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Let's now take this to its logical conclusion.
>> At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as
>> though the average power (including the power applied by the band
>> heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW.
>> Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its
>> 124C peak.
>> So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume
>> some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question,
>> "What's the floor?":
>> Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C
>> to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the "sound",
>> "feel" and relative temperature stability. But, as with every
>> demonstration, we cannot determine how much.
>> This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to
>> 380 watts or 2.5 kw.
>>
>> Robert Lynn > > wrote:
>>
>> >During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with
>> same LMI P18
>> >pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if
>> making
>> >124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar)
>> >http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would
>> suggest at
>> >maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure.
>> >http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
>> >
>> >If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than
>> 3.6kw
>> >(1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW
>> (0.91g/s
>> >24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was
>> >dropping.
>> >
>> >At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary
>> of 6.5°C
>> >and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a
>> power output
>> >of 4.5kW.
>> >
>> >So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be
>> >delivering.  This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly
>> >overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad
>> outlet
>> >thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though
>> it could be
>> >a lot more.
>> >
>> >On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>  At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alan J Fletcher mailto:a...@well.com>> wrote:
>> >>  It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his
>> responses to
>> >> Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably
>> at the usual
>> >> drain).
>> >> He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the
>> flowmeter.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The
>> flow
>> >> results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature.
>> >>
>> >> He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of
>> >> sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the
>> peristaltic pump
>> >> was increased.
>> >>
>> >> We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during
>> Lewan's
>> >> walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says "about 1 hour ago
>> we went into
>> >> self-sustaining mode".
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Here is how to fake the big e-cat:

[Rich Murray]

http://ecatnews.com/?page_id=2

About\

eCatNews is run by me, Paul Story ( Dreamwords  http://www.dreamwords.com/ ).

Appalled by the wild misreporting of this  (potentially) important
technology, I wanted to write about it in a way that would be
evidentially impartial. To understand why this is important,  look no
further than the relevant wiki pages. A fabulous and recommended
resource, it is nevertheless open to malicious or poor editing.
Physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Brian Josephson, has been battling
exactly this problem. Thankfully, it is there for all to see - we just
need to keep our eyes open.

I do not have a seat at the table and claim no special insight. I do
claim to be honest, and while I will remain wary of assuming any of
Andrea Rossi’s claims are true, I do believe that the balance of
indicators point some way towards this conclusion. I remain cautious
only because it is prudent to do so and to enable me to see beyond my
own preconceptions.

New energy technology is awash with nonsense disguised as science. As
a former physicist whose current work and interests lie in our
technology-driven future, I will try to cut through the FUD. I will
report exactly what I see. Thus, eCatNews will chart the stumbles and
the wins as they happen. It is going to be a wild ride.

http://www.dreamwords.com/AboutPaulStory.htm

About Paul Story
Home Page
About Paul Story
Original Podcast
On Location - Videos
Paul's Blog
Contact
I'm setting up a Dreamwords Facebook Page. If you are on Facebook,
please help me get started by clicking below and then 'Like' the page.
Thanks. Paul

Enter your email address to follow this journey ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time and I will not pass
your details to a third party.

Launching The Dreamwords Honesty Edition

To expand to full Screen HD, right click and select. Pressing Escape
will minimize again

I've never liked doing as I am told, and yet somehow I managed to
conform long enough to become boring and dissatisfied with what I was
doing. In what some might call a mid-life crisis (but I think was
simply waking up and exclaiming 'Doh') I resigned a 21-year career - I
was going to live a creative life if it killed me. Determined not to
lose my freedom by conforming again, I dumped everything but three
bags. I no longer had a car, a home or regular bills. I did have a
good credit rating, an abundance of common sense that I had to trample
on and a tiny income that would put me on the poor list if I cared to
apply. I also had a love for the hills, a good education, an interest
in science and technology and a bloody-mindedness that could have
choked a salmon climbing the falls at Niagara .

Once an unpaid volunteer in the mountain rescue service, I am now well
past my sell-by date. But, for a few years at least, I was certain
that I could survive in the wilds - in touch with the world and
productive through modern technology. In the depth of winter, I
travelled - sometimes abroad, sometimes at home - staying with friends
and family, house-sitting or renting inexpensive apartments.

And so, one novel followed another as I honed my skills and began to
work on an idea that would grow to become Dreamwords. I was in this
for the stretch. I loved it, lived it, walked with my characters,
lived in their heads and breathed the same air.

I was free to choose, free to fall on my face or land on my feet.

Such freedom has benefits and challenges and that includes the freedom
to risk my life on an idea. I am often accused by friends and family
of being too trusting, as though defaulting to the positive in others
is a flaw. But I have been scammed and hurt and kicked just like you,
so it cannot be naivety built on the privilege of luck. Most of us are
locked to a bunkered mindset, trained by modern life and other
people's agendas to toe the line in case something bad happens - to
keep the world at bay so that you can die unhurt.

It comes down to numbers. It only takes one person to ruin your life
even if I am right to believe that most people are good. This is why
The Honesty Edition is designed to work if only most people are
honest. That is what I believe and that is what I'm staking my life
on. I guess, in many ways, for better or worse, that is who I am.


http://dreamwords.com/wpblog/


http://www.dreamwords.com/contact.htm

As I write this, I have no idea where I will be after The Honesty
Edition kicks off. There is no manual, no-one to pass on their
experience. I may spend some time in my tent and, if I can afford, it,
living with my books in the back of a van. At other times, I'll be
with family and friends trying to keep on top of that other mountain.
Wherever I am, I try to get a signal to retrieve email every day, even
if it means I have to climb high to do so. This is not always
possible, but I do try

I welcome media, business, publishing and general enquiries but will
always strive to answer anyone kind enough to write.

Media: pr...@dr

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Colin Hercus]

Hi Jed,

I can design a device where heat in the output goes up after power is turned
off.

A simple analogy would be a steel bar, if apply heat to one end with a torch
and measure the temperature of the other end there will be a temperature
difference along the bar. When I stop applying heat there will still be an
increase in the temperature of the other end until the bar reaches
equilibrium and starts to cool.

You can build an equivalent "circuit" with 2 resistors and 2 capacitors.
== The ECat behaves just like this as can be seen by the slow start
to warming.



You are right that once input power is stopped the system as a whole must
cool but it's possible if one part is hot and another relatively cooler then
the cool part can continue to increase in temperature. This is elementary
physics.

If the flow rate is 0.9 g/sec then it's also clear that the we can't be
putting 8000W into the second heat exchanger so either the primary flow rate
is wrong or the temperature measurements are wrong. Either way this is
another test that has failed to prove the device works.

Personally I'm still about 90% sure it does work and would just like to see
a definitive test.

Colin

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Robert Leguillon wrote:
>
>  Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.
>> Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping.
>>  If you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you.  Make a
>> scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a Thermos. See how long it
>> takes to cool.
>>
>
> Yes, yes, yes, we all know that heat can be stored. Please look at what I
> wrote. I am saying that it cannot be released passively from a stable system
> except monotonically decreasing. Yes, the temperature can be very high. Yes,
> the decline can be slow when you use lots of insulation. (But in this case,
> the data proves it was very fast.)
>
> But the temperature CANNOT go anywhere but DOWN. It can only decrease,
> never increase. The rate of decrease must follow Newton's law. That is the
> point you must address to prove the "stored heat" hypothesis. How can it
> violate Newton's law? You need to demonstrate that it can by experiment.
>
> The only way it can go up is if there is heat generation. This is
> absolutely fundamental to physics. It is the whole basis of calorimetry. if
> this was not true calorimeters would not work.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Pre order your e-cat here! (not joke)

[Daniel Rocha]

I am actually surprised that Rich did not comment on this because one of the
clearest marks of scams is the pre order of products not properly
demonstrated...

RE: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Both Harry and Robert are missing Jed's point... 

In order for their thermos analogy to be a proper analogy, it would have to
say this:

Take a Thermos bottle and insert a thermocouple about 1/3rd of the way into
it.
Pour in boiling water to fill up the thermos to 1/2 way. The steam generated
from the boiling water causes the TC to increase its temperature reading.
Give the thermocouple about 5 minutes to stabilize.  What is going to happen
to the TC readings from now on, even as the boiling continues?

If you want, pour some more boiling water, perhaps thru a tube so you don't
touch the TC, and see if the TC readings increase significantly.

Jed (via Newton) is saying that the TC readings will not increase
significantly as seen in the E-Cat.
  
-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:17 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible
assertions about stored heat

Pour some boiling water into a thermos. For how long does the water
continue to boil?
Harry

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Robert Leguillon
 wrote:
> Jed,
> Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.
> Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping. 
If
> you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you.  Make a
> scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a Thermos. See how long it
> takes to cool.
> Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee.
> People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container
> specifically designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal
> exceeding 124C (after all, they must be hotter than the water to heat it)
> has stored energy.
> Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was
> about 20 liters of water.  At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than 6
> hours to replace the water in the E-Cat.
> Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot.
> You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for
"violating
> the laws of physics."
> The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary,
> which necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and
the
> changes seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat.
> The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect.  If the measurements
> are correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to
rise.
>

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Peter Heckert]

Am 11.10.2011 16:01, schrieb Colin Hercus:

Hi Robert,

If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 
124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly 
well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to 
possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at 
least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures.


The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C 
which requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that 
0.9g/sec of steam at 124C has.


I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of 
11kg/hr.  I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate 
for the October test..



Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94236


Colin


On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon 
mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com>> 
wrote:


Let's now take this to its logical conclusion.
At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as
though the average power (including the power applied by the band
heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW.
Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its
124C peak.
So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume
some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question,
"What's the floor?":
Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C
to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the "sound",
"feel" and relative temperature stability. But, as with every
demonstration, we cannot determine how much.
This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to
380 watts or 2.5 kw.

Robert Lynn mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with
same LMI P18
>pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if
making
>124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar)
>http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would
suggest at
>maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure.
>http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
>
>If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than
3.6kw
>(1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW
(0.91g/s
>24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was
>dropping.
>
>At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary
of 6.5°C
>and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a
power output
>of 4.5kW.
>
>So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be
>delivering.  This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly
>overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad
outlet
>thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though
it could be
>a lot more.
>
>On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher mailto:a...@well.com>> wrote:
>
>>  At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> Alan J Fletcher mailto:a...@well.com>> wrote:
>>  It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his
responses to
>> Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably
at the usual
>> drain).
>> He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the
flowmeter.
>>
>>
>> The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The
flow
>> results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature.
>>
>> He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of
>> sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the
peristaltic pump
>> was increased.
>>
>> We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during
Lewan's
>> walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says "about 1 hour ago
we went into
>> self-sustaining mode".
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Here is how to fake the big e-cat:

[Rich Murray]

Here's the link to John Dlouhy's post:

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1010#comment-5135


Interesting prior discussions -- here's a selection of a few skeptical comments:


http://ecatnews.com/?p=980

Ny TekNik’s Report
admin on October 7, 2011 — 131 Comments

Ny Teknik’s Report

[Thank you, Renzo]

I am disappointed. After writing a hopeful post, I expected the report
to give us some solid data to hang our optimism from. While Ny
Teknik’s initial offering is probably a preliminary stab, first
impressions are not good. Rather than solidifying optimism, I have
taken a step closer to scepticism.

To hear that three cores were enclosed in a flat box but that only one
was in use and that we had around 4 hours of almost 3KW input followed
by over 3 hours with an output of 3.5KW, I struggle to call that
definitive. Without that near-certainty, I do not understand the
purpose of the test.

To further learn that the very important US customer is no more, makes
me worry that the pattern is been set for a fall.

Anyone who has read my previous posts will know that I say the above
with extreme reluctance. I also allow that once we know more, the
let-down may yet be turned around. It really is too early to call. Was
the flat box opened to show the three cores? Why was only one used?
Why did one 3.5KW core need four hours of high power to fire when
previously a 12-20KW core needed around 1KW input? Why stop the test
so early and at such a critical juncture? Why take all the trouble to
kill the steam argument to create a whole load more that are just as
obvious?

The data may tell a different story when we look closer but we should
not let hope blind us to the fact that we need more than the Ny TekNik
article appears to give us. Let us hope that the data provides exactly
that.

ETA

My position is not accusatory but deflated. I do not conclude (yet)
that the eCat does not work but that AR did not knock the ball out of
the park as he should have been able to do if the 1MW plant was ready
as advertised. Why?

Posted in Bologna, Media/Blogs, test | Tagged Bologna, Ny Teknik,
report, Rossi, Test

131 Comments to "Ny TekNik’s Report"


John Dlouhy
October 7, 2011 - 3:21 pm | Permalink

Renzo, here’s why I’m pessimistic. The large volume of the “housing”
was filled up with water and brought to boiling temperature by 4 hours
of electric heating at 2.7KW. In addition, in the large reservoir of
heated water, there is a 2.4L container which could contain exothermic
chemicals, like the ones used in hand warmers for example, that could
easily have boosted the heat output. The temp. observations were made
on Rossi’s own instrumentation which we can NOT reasonably trust
considering the nature of the claim, but even if we do accept the
readings, they indicate an amount of energy easily supplied by known
means.


John Dlouhy
October 7, 2011 - 3:38 pm | Permalink

Not at all, Renzo, Thicket’s scenario is entirely plausible. If the
100 L volume of the reactor was filled with water and brought to just
below boiling temp., the energy content would be:

100,000 g X (100C-30C) X 4.184J/C = 29.3 MJ

If we divide that by the number of seconds in 3.5 hours we get

29,300,000 J / (3.5 X 3600s) = 2324 Watts or about 2.3 KW.

That is exactly in the range of output estimated by Lewan using data
from Rossi’s own measurement instruments.


John Dlouhy
October 7, 2011 - 7:46 pm | Permalink

It doesn’t make sense that the insulated case was too hot to touch. It
can’t be hotter than the 117C steam inside, and if so, how poor is the
insulation? I can pick up a hot casserole from my oven, 180C with a
folded dishtowel. Surely Rossi is using better insulation than that.
As well, touching something is a little too subjective to be
worthwhile as evidence; the conductivity of the surface comes into
play as far as the sensation is concerned.

While the reactor core dimensions indicate a volume of 400cc, it is
encased in 5 cm of lead shielding. Since it can’t be opened to verify,
we have to include its volume as unknown, at least 2L more if you
shield only the top and bottom and ignore the edges, in reality,
probably more.

I was one of the most hopeful people entertaining Rossi’s claims,
discussing its economic potential, anxiously waiting the big day when
the truth would be revealed to the world. Well that hasn’t happened.
Not even close. I’m a sincere person, and my skepticism is based, I
hope, on scientific imperative. We haven’t seen anything within
several orders of magnitude of a nuclear output. Why?


maryyugo
October 7, 2011 - 6:18 pm | Permalink

I’ve just started to look at the data. I’m with John Dlouhy on most of
his remarks. I am somewhat gratified that many of you now recognize
the reasons that this sort of test has to be done *independently* of
Rossi when it comes to everything other than the E-cat. Even the
method of measuring the output should have been left to others. While
a heat exchanger can work, it’s not as easy and clear cut as simply
sparging 

Re: [Vo]:Here is how to fake the big e-cat:

[Daniel Rocha]

Find it here:

http://ecatnews.com/?p=1010#comments

Although the scenario was discussed, this is "the cake recipe", as people
say here, on how to fake one.

2011/10/11 Rich Murray 

> Hello Daniel Rocha,
>
> Obviously, this scenario has to be discussed fairly and fully, before
> excess heat can be proclaimed to be irrefutable...
>
> How can we locate this  post on ecatnews.com ?
>
> Thanks,  Rich Murray
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>
> > From ecatnews.com
> > **
> > John Dlouhy
> > October 11, 2011 - 3:08 pm | Permalink
> >
> > Enrico Billi tells us that they weighed the E-Cat before and after, but
> not
> > why it mysteriously gained a kilogram of weight. I can offer a plausible
> > explanation.
> >
> > On the bottom of the E-Cat housing sits a relatively large volume
> enclosure,
> > the reactor module, which we are told houses a small reactor core and
> large
> > amounts of lead shielding. This volume was not opened so its contents
> were
> > not revealed. In fact, neither were its dimensions given and must be
> > inferred from a photograph and a few other measurements. It is safe to
> say
> > that it is at least 10 liters and could be as much as 20 liters.
> >
> > Enrico says that there were no smells of anything burning, but one of the
> > best candidates for a hidden fuel would be and alcohol like methanol or
> > ethanol. These are very pure chemicals that burn to produce mostly steam
> and
> > a small amount of carbon dioxide. Their combustion is odorless. Their
> > combustion products could easily have been emitted through the reactor
> > output hose and never be detected. CO2 is odorless.
> >
> > Of course the obvious question is how would it receive oxygen. The not so
> > obvious answer is a relatively unknown, but actually ubiquitous
> technology
> > called a chemical oxygen generator. Referred to in the industry as an
> oxygen
> > candle, it consists of a mixture of a strong oxidizer and a powdered
> metal.
> > When ignited at about 600C, it smolders slowly, giving off heat and
> copious
> > amounts of excess oxygen. This is the same process that provides the
> > emergency oxygen in commercial aircraft. Its used in mining, emergency
> > operations, any place a very compact and stable form of oxygen is
> required.
> > Its storage density, in the case of a Lithium Perchlorate formulation,
> > equals that of liquid oxygen!
> >
> > About 2 liters of propanol, and 2 liters of a Li Perchlorate formulation
> > could provide more enthalpy than was measured in the Oct. 6
> demonstration.
> > The propanol, which boils at 98C would have started to emit vapor just
> > before the water came to a boil during its warm up phase. A resistance
> > heater would ignite the oxy candle and the two gasses would meet at the
> top
> > of the housing, which is the underside of the heat exchange fins. That
> > surface would be plated with nickel or platinum to catalytically help
> > combust the two gasses, just as occurs in an inexpensive camping heater.
> >
> > This would burn for several hours, at which time a covert signal would
> tell
> > Rossi its time to shut down the reactor, hence his need to be present.
> > During the time the reactor is allowed to cool, small openings would
> allow
> > water to seep into the reactor module case and make up the weight of the
> > lost fuel and oxidizer, possibly the same openings which vented the
> > combustion products. This would not be an exact process, hence the
> > requirement of weighing with inaccurate scales, and the need to overlook
> a 1
> > kilogram weight gain.
> >
> > This example accounts for all of the observations that were reported, as
> > well as the electrical and plumbing connections that were seen. It
> explains
> > the mysterious weight gain, the need for such a prolonged warm up phase,
> and
> > the need to stop the demonstration after just 4 hours.
>
>

[Vo]:Rossi's Legacy

[Robert Lynn]

I believe that the ecat will lead to successful commercial products and
Rossi will end up rich (even if he loses control and it is only from
notoriety, prizes etc), but if the successors to the ecat are successful
then his greatest notoriety will probably come from being a much used
example for the next 2-3 generations by science, engineering, innovation,
marketing and intellectual property teachers of how not to do things.  If he
is unlucky his name could even become a byword for screwing up.

Re: [Vo]:Here is how to fake the big e-cat:

[Rich Murray]

Hello Daniel Rocha,

Obviously, this scenario has to be discussed fairly and fully, before
excess heat can be proclaimed to be irrefutable...

How can we locate this  post on ecatnews.com ?

Thanks,  Rich Murray

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> From ecatnews.com
> **
> John Dlouhy
> October 11, 2011 - 3:08 pm | Permalink
>
> Enrico Billi tells us that they weighed the E-Cat before and after, but not
> why it mysteriously gained a kilogram of weight. I can offer a plausible
> explanation.
>
> On the bottom of the E-Cat housing sits a relatively large volume enclosure,
> the reactor module, which we are told houses a small reactor core and large
> amounts of lead shielding. This volume was not opened so its contents were
> not revealed. In fact, neither were its dimensions given and must be
> inferred from a photograph and a few other measurements. It is safe to say
> that it is at least 10 liters and could be as much as 20 liters.
>
> Enrico says that there were no smells of anything burning, but one of the
> best candidates for a hidden fuel would be and alcohol like methanol or
> ethanol. These are very pure chemicals that burn to produce mostly steam and
> a small amount of carbon dioxide. Their combustion is odorless. Their
> combustion products could easily have been emitted through the reactor
> output hose and never be detected. CO2 is odorless.
>
> Of course the obvious question is how would it receive oxygen. The not so
> obvious answer is a relatively unknown, but actually ubiquitous technology
> called a chemical oxygen generator. Referred to in the industry as an oxygen
> candle, it consists of a mixture of a strong oxidizer and a powdered metal.
> When ignited at about 600C, it smolders slowly, giving off heat and copious
> amounts of excess oxygen. This is the same process that provides the
> emergency oxygen in commercial aircraft. Its used in mining, emergency
> operations, any place a very compact and stable form of oxygen is required.
> Its storage density, in the case of a Lithium Perchlorate formulation,
> equals that of liquid oxygen!
>
> About 2 liters of propanol, and 2 liters of a Li Perchlorate formulation
> could provide more enthalpy than was measured in the Oct. 6 demonstration.
> The propanol, which boils at 98C would have started to emit vapor just
> before the water came to a boil during its warm up phase. A resistance
> heater would ignite the oxy candle and the two gasses would meet at the top
> of the housing, which is the underside of the heat exchange fins. That
> surface would be plated with nickel or platinum to catalytically help
> combust the two gasses, just as occurs in an inexpensive camping heater.
>
> This would burn for several hours, at which time a covert signal would tell
> Rossi its time to shut down the reactor, hence his need to be present.
> During the time the reactor is allowed to cool, small openings would allow
> water to seep into the reactor module case and make up the weight of the
> lost fuel and oxidizer, possibly the same openings which vented the
> combustion products. This would not be an exact process, hence the
> requirement of weighing with inaccurate scales, and the need to overlook a 1
> kilogram weight gain.
>
> This example accounts for all of the observations that were reported, as
> well as the electrical and plumbing connections that were seen. It explains
> the mysterious weight gain, the need for such a prolonged warm up phase, and
> the need to stop the demonstration after just 4 hours.

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Rich Murray]

Hello Robert Leguillon,

a pretty good short summary of Horace Heffner's competent, detailed,
much improved critical reviews -- so pragmatic skepticism seems amply
justified...

Thanks,  Rich Murray

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:57 AM, Robert Leguillon
 wrote:

> Jed,

> Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.
> Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping.  If
> you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you.  Make a
> scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a Thermos. See how long it
> takes to cool.

> Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee.
> People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container
> specifically designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal
> exceeding 124C (after all, they must be hotter than the water to heat it)
> has stored energy.

> Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was
> about 20 liters of water.  At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than 6
> hours to replace the water in the E-Cat.

> Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot.
> You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for "violating
> the laws of physics."

> The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary,
> which necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and the
> changes seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat.
> The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect.  If the measurements
> are correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to rise.

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Harry Veeder]

How much power does this frequency device need?

Harry

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Robert Leguillon
 wrote:
> Do I get a "device that generates frequencies"?
>
>> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:16:48 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible
>> assertions about stored heat
>> From: hveeder...@gmail.com
>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>
>> Pour some boiling water into a thermos. For how long does the water
>> continue to boil?
>> Harry
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Robert Leguillon
>>  wrote:
>> > Jed,
>> > Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.
>> > Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from
>> > escaping.  If
>> > you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you.  Make a
>> > scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a Thermos. See how long it
>> > takes to cool.
>> > Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee.
>> > People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container
>> > specifically designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal
>> > exceeding 124C (after all, they must be hotter than the water to heat
>> > it)
>> > has stored energy.
>> > Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was
>> > about 20 liters of water.  At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than
>> > 6
>> > hours to replace the water in the E-Cat.
>> > Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot.
>> > You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for
>> > "violating
>> > the laws of physics."
>> > The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary,
>> > which necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and
>> > the
>> > changes seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the
>> > E-Cat.
>> > The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect.  If the
>> > measurements
>> > are correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to
>> > rise.
>> >
>>
>

[Vo]:Here is how to fake the big e-cat:

[Daniel Rocha]

>From ecatnews.com
**
John Dlouhy
October 11, 2011 - 3:08 pm | Permalink

Enrico Billi tells us that they weighed the E-Cat before and after, but not
why it mysteriously gained a kilogram of weight. I can offer a plausible
explanation.

On the bottom of the E-Cat housing sits a relatively large volume enclosure,
the reactor module, which we are told houses a small reactor core and large
amounts of lead shielding. This volume was not opened so its contents were
not revealed. In fact, neither were its dimensions given and must be
inferred from a photograph and a few other measurements. It is safe to say
that it is at least 10 liters and could be as much as 20 liters.

Enrico says that there were no smells of anything burning, but one of the
best candidates for a hidden fuel would be and alcohol like methanol or
ethanol. These are very pure chemicals that burn to produce mostly steam and
a small amount of carbon dioxide. Their combustion is odorless. Their
combustion products could easily have been emitted through the reactor
output hose and never be detected. CO2 is odorless.

Of course the obvious question is how would it receive oxygen. The not so
obvious answer is a relatively unknown, but actually ubiquitous technology
called a chemical oxygen generator. Referred to in the industry as an oxygen
candle, it consists of a mixture of a strong oxidizer and a powdered metal.
When ignited at about 600C, it smolders slowly, giving off heat and copious
amounts of excess oxygen. This is the same process that provides the
emergency oxygen in commercial aircraft. Its used in mining, emergency
operations, any place a very compact and stable form of oxygen is required.
Its storage density, in the case of a Lithium Perchlorate formulation,
equals that of liquid oxygen!

About 2 liters of propanol, and 2 liters of a Li Perchlorate formulation
could provide more enthalpy than was measured in the Oct. 6 demonstration.
The propanol, which boils at 98C would have started to emit vapor just
before the water came to a boil during its warm up phase. A resistance
heater would ignite the oxy candle and the two gasses would meet at the top
of the housing, which is the underside of the heat exchange fins. That
surface would be plated with nickel or platinum to catalytically help
combust the two gasses, just as occurs in an inexpensive camping heater.

This would burn for several hours, at which time a covert signal would tell
Rossi its time to shut down the reactor, hence his need to be present.
During the time the reactor is allowed to cool, small openings would allow
water to seep into the reactor module case and make up the weight of the
lost fuel and oxidizer, possibly the same openings which vented the
combustion products. This would not be an exact process, hence the
requirement of weighing with inaccurate scales, and the need to overlook a 1
kilogram weight gain.

This example accounts for all of the observations that were reported, as
well as the electrical and plumbing connections that were seen. It explains
the mysterious weight gain, the need for such a prolonged warm up phase, and
the need to stop the demonstration after just 4 hours.

RE: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Robert Leguillon]

Do I get a "device that generates frequencies"?
 

> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:16:48 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible 
> assertions about stored heat
> From: hveeder...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> Pour some boiling water into a thermos. For how long does the water
> continue to boil?
> Harry
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Robert Leguillon
>  wrote:
> > Jed,
> > Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.
> > Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping.  If
> > you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you.  Make a
> > scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a Thermos. See how long it
> > takes to cool.
> > Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee.
> > People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container
> > specifically designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal
> > exceeding 124C (after all, they must be hotter than the water to heat it)
> > has stored energy.
> > Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was
> > about 20 liters of water.  At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than 6
> > hours to replace the water in the E-Cat.
> > Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot.
> > You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for "violating
> > the laws of physics."
> > The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary,
> > which necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and the
> > changes seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat.
> > The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect.  If the measurements
> > are correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to rise.
> >
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Harry Veeder]

Pour some boiling water into a thermos. For how long does the water
continue to boil?
Harry

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Robert Leguillon
 wrote:
> Jed,
> Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.
> Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping.  If
> you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you.  Make a
> scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a Thermos. See how long it
> takes to cool.
> Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee.
> People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container
> specifically designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal
> exceeding 124C (after all, they must be hotter than the water to heat it)
> has stored energy.
> Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was
> about 20 liters of water.  At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than 6
> hours to replace the water in the E-Cat.
> Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot.
> You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for "violating
> the laws of physics."
> The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary,
> which necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and the
> changes seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat.
> The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect.  If the measurements
> are correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to rise.
>

[Vo]:Pre order your e-cat here! (not joke)

[Daniel Rocha]

On this website

http://www.planetpay.com/x_reg.php

Rossi is OK with that website, as you can notice here:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=20#comment-94587

John M ichell 
October 10th, 2011 at 3:17
PM

Congratulations on your great work with the E-Cat. I agree absolutely that
it is best to avoid publicity at the moment.
I am the author of the book “Rossi’s eCat” about the history, development
and significance for the world of this momentous invension.
The book came out this week (http://www/xecnet.com/publish.htm).
In the spirit of enabling the E-Cat to be spread amongst the people, I have
started an online initiative, fully described in the book, to bring together
a global community of private customers for the device – allowing the
introduction of a new currency unit based on E-Cat energy. See
http://www.planetpay.com

Andrea Rossi
October 10th, 2011 at 4:30
PM

Dear John Michell:
Stay ready…and thank you a lot.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Greg
October 11th, 2011 at 4:40
AM

Dear Mr Rossi,

I’m CONCERNED that journal-of-nuclear-physics.com has been hacked by third
parties attempting a scam. I don’t see any other reasonable explanation. You
may wish to investigate the following comment entries:

Andrea Rossi
October 10th, 2011 at 4:30 PM
Dear John Michell:
Stay ready…and thank you a lot.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
.
.
.
John M ichell
October 10th, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Congratulations on your great work with the E-Cat. I agree absolutely that
it is best to avoid publicity at the moment.
I am the author of the book “Rossi’s eCat” about the history, development
and significance for the world of this momentous invension.
The book came out this week (http://www/xecnet.com/publish.htm).
In the spirit of enabling the E-Cat to be spread amongst the people, I have
started an online initiative, fully described in the book, to bring together
a global community of private customers for the device – allowing the
introduction of a new currency unit based on E-Cat energy. See
http://www.planetpay.com

Very best of luck with the important matters!

Greg


Andrea Rossi
October 11th, 2011 at 4:46
AM

Dear Greg:
What’s wrong?
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Leguillon wrote:


Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.
Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from 
escaping.  If you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment 
for you.  Make a scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a 
Thermos. See how long it takes to cool.


Yes, yes, yes, we all know that heat can be stored. Please look at what 
I wrote. I am saying that it cannot be released passively from a stable 
system except monotonically decreasing. Yes, the temperature can be very 
high. Yes, the decline can be slow when you use lots of insulation. (But 
in this case, the data proves it was very fast.)


But the temperature CANNOT go anywhere but DOWN. It can only decrease, 
never increase. The rate of decrease must follow Newton's law. That is 
the point you must address to prove the "stored heat" hypothesis. How 
can it violate Newton's law? You need to demonstrate that it can by 
experiment.


The only way it can go up is if there is heat generation. This is 
absolutely fundamental to physics. It is the whole basis of calorimetry. 
if this was not true calorimeters would not work.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Alexander Hollins wrote:


jed, if the power were used to, say, run a thermoelectric heat pump,
cooling one side of the pump, and heating something that was otherwise
internally insulated . . .


Sure. I agree. That would not be passive cooling. However, people have 
looked inside Rossi devices and they have not seen heat pumps in them. A 
thermoelectric heat pump large enough to move several kilowatts is a 
large object which could not be hidden or overlooked.


I am saying that people have made this assertion about heat loss in a 
stable system, with the same flow rate or other means of heat loss. They 
are saying the heat loss can spontaneously increase or decrease. They 
have to explain how this can happen.


Naturally, if you slow down the secondary loop flow rate the Delta T 
temperature will go up.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Robert Leguillon]

Jed, 
Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage.  
Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping.  If 
you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you.  Make a 
scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee.  Put it into a Thermos. See how long it takes 
to cool.
Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee.
People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container specifically 
designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal exceeding 124C (after 
all, they must be hotter than the water to heat it) has stored energy. 
Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was about 
20 liters of water.  At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than 6 hours to 
replace the water in the E-Cat.
Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot.
You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for "violating 
the laws of physics."
The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary, which 
necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and the changes 
seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat. 

The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect.  If the measurements are 
correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to rise.
 

> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:40:21 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible 
> assertions about stored heat
> From: alexander.holl...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> jed, if the power were used to, say, run a thermoelectric heat pump,
> cooling one side of the pump, and heating something that was otherwise
> internally insulated, then heat WOULD go up after power is removed.
> (Just saying, if I were going to fake something, that's what I'd do. )
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> > Colin Hercus wrote:
> >
> >> If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C
> >> is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well
> >> insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give
> >> the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a 
> >> scam
> >> is possible based on primary temperatures.
> >
> > People here keep saying this but there are fundamental physical reasons why
> > this is impossible:
> >
> > 1. Nearly all the heat added to the system clearly emerged from it before
> > heat after death began. if that were not the case, the temperature would not
> > have risen, and the cooling water would not have removed so much heat. you
> > cannot have the same heat emerge from the system twice.
> >
> > 2. When the power is turned off the temperature declines rapidly as seen at
> > 15:26 and again at the end of the run 19:43.
> >
> > 3. The temperature rises after the power is turned off. Stored heat cannot
> > do this.
> >
> > 4. The temperature fluctuates. Stored heat can only decline at a fixed rate.
> >
> > This is a physics form. If you are going to make assertions which are
> > contrary to the known laws of physics you should at least acknowledge that,
> > and try to explain why you believe this is an exception to the laws of
> > physics. I also think it is appropriate to do this before you publish
> > accusations of a scam.
> >
> > The accusation that this is a scam should not get a free pass, and not be
> > subject to a rigorous analysis based on the laws of physics.
> >
> > Honestly, if you think that stored heat can act this way, I think it is
> > incumbent upon you to perform an experiment to demonstrate it. I have
> > asserted that laboratory grade handheld thermocouple meters can measure
> > temperatures between zero and 100°C to within 1° reliably.  I did not just
> > assert this, I tested carefully many times, and I can upload sample data to
> > show it. People who make these claims about stored heat should be willing to
> > upload data showing how stored heat being released in a stable system with
> > no changes to the flow rate or other conditions can suddenly increase the
> > temperature.
> >
> > - Jed
> >
> >
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Hollins:

> jed, if the power were used to, say, run a thermoelectric heat pump,
> cooling one side of the pump, and heating something that was
> otherwise internally insulated, then heat WOULD go up after power
> is removed. (Just saying, if I were going to fake something, that's
> what I'd do. )

Pardon me for butting in for a second:

It seems to me that this premise assumes that the output heat would
start going up immediately AFTER the input power has been turned off.
However, as best as I can tell, looking carefully at the timeline of
the charts it is shown that the output heat has ALREADY been going up
for several minutes prior to when the input power was been turned off.

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

Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Alexander Hollins]

jed, if the power were used to, say, run a thermoelectric heat pump,
cooling one side of the pump, and heating something that was otherwise
internally insulated, then heat WOULD go up after power is removed.
(Just saying, if I were going to fake something, that's what I'd do. )



On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Colin Hercus wrote:
>
>> If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C
>> is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well
>> insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give
>> the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a scam
>> is possible based on primary temperatures.
>
> People here keep saying this but there are fundamental physical reasons why
> this is impossible:
>
> 1. Nearly all the heat added to the system clearly emerged from it before
> heat after death began. if that were not the case, the temperature would not
> have risen, and the cooling water would not have removed so much heat. you
> cannot have the same heat emerge from the system twice.
>
> 2. When the power is turned off the temperature declines rapidly as seen at
> 15:26 and again at the end of the run 19:43.
>
> 3. The temperature rises after the power is turned off. Stored heat cannot
> do this.
>
> 4. The temperature fluctuates. Stored heat can only decline at a fixed rate.
>
> This is a physics form. If you are going to make assertions which are
> contrary to the known laws of physics you should at least acknowledge that,
> and try to explain why you believe this is an exception to the laws of
> physics. I also think it is appropriate to do this before you publish
> accusations of a scam.
>
> The accusation that this is a scam should not get a free pass, and not be
> subject to a rigorous analysis based on the laws of physics.
>
> Honestly, if you think that stored heat can act this way, I think it is
> incumbent upon you to perform an experiment to demonstrate it. I have
> asserted that laboratory grade handheld thermocouple meters can measure
> temperatures between zero and 100°C to within 1° reliably.  I did not just
> assert this, I tested carefully many times, and I can upload sample data to
> show it. People who make these claims about stored heat should be willing to
> upload data showing how stored heat being released in a stable system with
> no changes to the flow rate or other conditions can suddenly increase the
> temperature.
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible assertions about stored heat

[Jed Rothwell]

Colin Hercus wrote:

If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 
124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly 
well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to 
possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at 
least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures.


People here keep saying this but there are fundamental physical reasons 
why this is impossible:


1. Nearly all the heat added to the system clearly emerged from it 
before heat after death began. if that were not the case, the 
temperature would not have risen, and the cooling water would not have 
removed so much heat. you cannot have the same heat emerge from the 
system twice.


2. When the power is turned off the temperature declines rapidly as seen 
at 15:26 and again at the end of the run 19:43.


3. The temperature rises after the power is turned off. Stored heat 
cannot do this.


4. The temperature fluctuates. Stored heat can only decline at a fixed 
rate.


This is a physics form. If you are going to make assertions which are 
contrary to the known laws of physics you should at least acknowledge 
that, and try to explain why you believe this is an exception to the 
laws of physics. I also think it is appropriate to do this before you 
publish accusations of a scam.


The accusation that this is a scam should not get a free pass, and not 
be subject to a rigorous analysis based on the laws of physics.


Honestly, if you think that stored heat can act this way, I think it is 
incumbent upon you to perform an experiment to demonstrate it. I have 
asserted that laboratory grade handheld thermocouple meters can measure 
temperatures between zero and 100°C to within 1° reliably.  I did not 
just assert this, I tested carefully many times, and I can upload sample 
data to show it. People who make these claims about stored heat should 
be willing to upload data showing how stored heat being released in a 
stable system with no changes to the flow rate or other conditions can 
suddenly increase the temperature.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data

[Colin Hercus]

Hi Robert,

If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C
is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well
insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give
the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a scam
is possible based on primary temperatures.

The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C which
requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that 0.9g/sec of
steam at 124C has.

I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of
11kg/hr.  I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate for the
October test..

Colin


On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon <
robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Let's now take this to its logical conclusion.
> At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the
> average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the
> entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have
> resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C peak.
> So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume some loss
> through the thermal blankets. It begs the question, "What's the floor?":
> Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C to 124C.
> We know some water was boiling, due to the "sound", "feel" and relative
> temperature stability. But, as with every demonstration, we cannot determine
> how much.
> This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to 380 watts
> or 2.5 kw.
>
> Robert Lynn  wrote:
>
> >During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI
> P18
> >pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making
> >124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar)
> >http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest
> at
> >maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure.
> >http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
> >
> >If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw
> >(1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s
> >24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was
> >dropping.
> >
> >At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C
> >and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power
> output
> >of 4.5kW.
> >
> >So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be
> >delivering.  This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly
> >overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet
> >thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could
> be
> >a lot more.
> >
> >On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
> >
> >>  At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> >>
> >> Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
> >>  It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses
> to
> >> Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the
> usual
> >> drain).
> >> He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter.
> >>
> >>
> >> The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow
> >> results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature.
> >>
> >> He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of
> >> sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic
> pump
> >> was increased.
> >>
> >> We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's
> >> walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says "about 1 hour ago we went
> into
> >> self-sustaining mode".
> >>
> >>
>

Re: [Vo]:What is insulting and why?

[Rich Murray]

Hello Jouni Valkonen,

I  think in any group, there are prominent leaders of various sorts,
who often function as gatekeepers, posting messages to alert the
majority of group members that one member is deviant from the majority
of members, and therefore should be ignored -- then any member who
answers the minority position member or even supports his position or
suggests discussion with him is still legitimate, in the tradition of
open-minded civil rational evidence and reason based debate, is also
in danger of being excluded by the gatekeepers.

So, the issue in Vortex-L, is: is the term "pathological skeptic" and
similar terms being used to inhibit free and open debate?

How willing are the members to agree on a very high level of very open
minded, polite debate, making every attempt to avoid unfair and
rejecting depictions of others and their positions, while retaining
careful use of vivid and humorous language, which is also very
valuable?

As a member of Vortex-L since 1996, I will continue to do my best to
practice the highest standards myself, and am very willing to
respectfully study and benefit  from negative feedback.

within one family, Rich Murray


On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Jouni Valkonen  wrote:

> It is curious how superficial people are when it comes to using derogatory
> words. People get mad about using explicit insulting words (such as Krivit,
> with his silly censoring of his blog) but they consider formal ad hominem
> expression as ok. Like what Lawrence here show us the true art of insulting.
> By the way, in many forums saying that "I will put someone into ignore list"
> is considered as violation of forum rules. That is because saying this in
> public is one of the most severe insults what you can make. This is good
> example how context makes words insulting. Not what is their dictionary
> meanining.
>
> What it comes to insulting people, that is that spreading negative
> disinformation about the person is what makes a sentence as insulting. Not
> what words they chose to use. Here Krivit has it extremely wrong, because he
> elevates his own insulting into higher level than Rossi's use of vulgar and
> derogative words such as "snake" or "clown". But truth is that Krivit has
> attacked Rossi in extremely insulting manner, because he has spread
> disinformation and speculations as facts, not to mentning indirect insults,
> such as crerative use of words "coffee maker" and "show room".
>
> Derogatory words often correlate with spreading negative disinformation. For
> example if I call Lawrence as "gay", it is insulting because it is spreading
> negative disinformation (and here we of course assume that both me and
> Lawrence are twelve year olders.)
>
> in summary. Insulting is not about the words, but it is all about the
> negative disinformation. Calling Jed here as "buffoon", is insulting, not
> because it is derogative word, but it is insulting because it is not true
> and it is not based on facts.
>
>    —Jouni
>
> maanantai, 10. lokakuuta 2011 Stephen A. Lawrence 
> kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>> On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
>>>
>>> Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ...
>>
>> And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who resorts
>> to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself clearly enough to
>> get his point across.
>>
>> Jed's may be a lot of things, possibly even including "wrong", but he's no
>> buffoon.
>>
>> And you,  /Mister/ Catania, are plonked.  I don't need to see this kind of
>> stuff on Vortex.  (You are also apparently the type of poster who can't be
>> bothered to proof read his posts for obvious typos before sending them,
>> which also contributes needlessly to the annoyance level of this list.)
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:rcdc.it web tv video of Oct 6 Rossi test

[Jed Rothwell]

Craig Haynie wrote:


Interesting! Is there any indication of what the real time was then?
Was that during heat after death? If it was more than an hour into it,
that video image proves there is anomalous heat. It proves that all by
itself, in the absence of thermocouple readings or any other ordinary
quantitative scientific data.

About 30 seconds earlier, it was indicated to be at hour 19:00.


Wow! That is the end of the 4-hour heat after death. It should be cold.

I noted how rapidly it cools at 19:55. That is when the primary cooling 
loop flow is turned up. Look back at 15:25. You see that even at the 
slower primary loop flow rate the power declines rapidly, presumably 
when anomalous heat stops.


There is also a rapid decline at 13:59. That may have something to do 
with transient conditions soon after admitting steam into the heat 
exchanger. As I said, you need stable conditions to do calorimetry.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
 wrote:
> Why doesn't Mills FINISH JUST ONE PRODUCT AND GET IT TO MARKET!

AADD

T

RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application

[Craig Haynie]

Oh shoot!

I thought you meant Rossi.

Regarding Mills, I wholeheartedly agree. :) It's starting to lead me to
believe that something's not there.

Craig

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 09:06 -0400, Craig Haynie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 23:07 -0700, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
> > Why doesn't Mills FINISH JUST ONE PRODUCT AND GET IT TO MARKET!
> > He's like a little kid who gets 90% done with something and then gets bored
> > with it and is off to some new and challenging puzzle... never completing
> > what he starts.
> 
> Wow, I see him as just the opposite. He's had a schedule laid out all
> year and he hasn't deviated from it. His goal was to build the 1mw
> reactor, and he's got it ready, on time.
> 
> Craig
> 

RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application

[Craig Haynie]

On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 23:07 -0700, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
> Why doesn't Mills FINISH JUST ONE PRODUCT AND GET IT TO MARKET!
> He's like a little kid who gets 90% done with something and then gets bored
> with it and is off to some new and challenging puzzle... never completing
> what he starts.

Wow, I see him as just the opposite. He's had a schedule laid out all
year and he hasn't deviated from it. His goal was to build the 1mw
reactor, and he's got it ready, on time.

Craig

RE: [Vo]:Re: [H-Ni_Fusion] How Rossi's ecat really works. The mystery details revealed.

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Rich:

...

> The water and steam heat energy coming out of the black box 
> device output, is thereby pumped right back into the machine. 
> This makes it possible to keep the device feeling hot, and 
> appear to be producing steam for a much longer period. 
> Also the device water containment is most likely under 
> pressure so that it can pick up more energy in the 
> heating phase, so that it last longer, and also show 
> a higher tmeperature reading from inside the device. 
>
> That is the essence of how this scam operates. 

What evidence does Mr. Schmidt present that proves his theory that the input
cooling water and steam energy coming out of the black box is being pumped
right back into the machine?

Also, as far as the scam theory goes, even assuming it IS a scam, how does
Schmitt (or you) assume Rossi's operation will cash in on their deception?

...

> Several of you will not want to believe this, as I had, 
> some several weeks ago, but this is what you will have to 
> understand, as to why Rossi will not do the simple and
> obvious. 

Belief is not required. Evidence is required.

One thing about Peace-of-Mind. Acquiring a state of Peace-of-Mind does not
in itself automatically make one wise and observant of one's surroundings.
It just makes one more peaceful than before, and of course that is a good
thing. However, one still has to work at being observant of one's
surroundings. One has to learn to be observant as to what it is that one
believes, and why.

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

RE: [Vo]:FW: Mills CIHT Published World Patent Application

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

> From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
> 
> Why doesn't Mills FINISH JUST ONE PRODUCT AND GET IT TO MARKET!
> He's like a little kid who gets 90% done with something and then gets
> bored
> with it and is off to some new and challenging puzzle... never
> completing
> what he starts.
> 
> The only other explanation is that he's not able to get his technology
> working reliably in order to make it commercially viable... perhaps due
> to a flawed theory which, if religiously held to, hampers engineering
> optimization instead of helping... Can't build a house on a crooked
> foundation.

Well that has been one explanation. Many have wondered about that.

OTOH, to be fair to BLP, it's my understanding that the facility is not
financially structured to creating prototypes for industry and consumers.
Just proof-of-concept experimental devices that aren't in their own right
something that can be commercialized - not without a lot of expensive R&D
engineering involved. BLP doesn't possess sufficient cash reserves for that
kind of operation. It's through the licensing of their research findings
that they hope to cash in when others sign up with licensing fees and
subsequently start paying royalties.
 
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 10, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:


The hyperlink to graph 3 is mistakenly pointing to graph 2 I think.



Right you are.  Thanks!  Should have been:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png




On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Horace Heffner  
 wrote:


On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  
wrote:


Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he  
made:


* * * * * *

A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting  
conclusion.  The Pout (power out) and the Eout (Energy out) appear  
to describe the net excess, not the total as everyone seems to assume.


Power is applied to the internal heater, showed by the red dots,  
until extra power starts to increase starting at 140 min.  The  
power to the heater is turned off for a short time at 160 min  
because the excess power starts to rise. This interruption of  
applied power and the resulting reduced temperature of the Ni  
caused the excess to decrease and excess power production is again  
brought under control. Applied power is interrupted several more  
times to test the stability of the power-producing reaction.  
Finally, applied power was turned off at 280 min whereupon the  
extra power increased and reached a relatively stable value. The  
variations in excess power production after 280 min are expected as  
the nuclear reaction responds to variations in local temperature in  
the Ni.  The nuclear reaction slowly decayed away and the test was  
terminated before it stopped all together.


I make two conclusions from this behavior.
1. The amount of energy produced was far in excess of any possible  
chemical source.
2. The energy-producing reaction is unstable and difficult to  
control. It also slowly becomes less productive unless the  
temperature is increased by an external source of power that can  
increase the temperature of the Ni, thereby causing a greater  
output of energy.  This means the energy-producing reaction has a  
limited life-time, which is what Rossi has indicated.


If the Pout and E out are interpreted as net excess, the graph  
makes perfect sense and is consistent with how such a device must  
behave.


Ed

I provided two spreadsheets from which the graphs were produced:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf

The latter one uses the raw data, the former has an 0.8°C bias  
applied to Delta T to compensate for probable thermocouple error,  
as noted in the "DISCUSSION OF GRAPH 4" section of the review:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf

The graphs were taken from the spread sheet with the bias. The  
above seems to refer to Graph 1, which is in the review, but also  
in higher resolution here:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiGraph.png

Graph 2 in high resolution is here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png

Graph 3 in high resolution is here:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png

I do not see how Pout and Eout can be "interpreted as net excess".  
I am possibly missing the intended meaning of this phrase.


Delta Eout is the thermal energy detected by the heat exchanger for  
the time period of a given row. Pout and Eout are created from this  
number. Pout is determined by a ratio of Delta Eout to the time  
period.  Eout is just a sum of all the Delta Eout values to the end  
of the individual time periods each row represents. These numbers  
represent the thermal output.


The net output, i.e. output energy - input energy, is not in the  
graph.  It is in the spread sheet column "Net E".


One way to interpret Ed's phrase "net excess" is to consider the  
thermal energy still stored in the E-cat as part of the total  
thermal energy generated.  That which has escaped and been measured  
by the heat exchanger is the net of total thermal energy generated  
minus the still stored energy. However, this interpretation does  
not seem to add anything to understanding discussion.


When cold water is run through the E-cat sufficiently long that it  
cools, and if there is no nuclear energy generated, and the  
calorimetry works well, then "Net E" should be zero at the end of  
the run, and COP should be 1. No energy is then left stored in the  
E-cat at the end. This is how a control run should be evaluated,  
and a live test done.


The power Pin applied to the heater in Graph 1 is indeed the red  
line. In Graph 2 it is the brown line.


I think Graphs 2 and 3 have much to say about how well controlled  
the reaction is, if there indeed is one. In Graph 2 we can see the  
E-cat temperature is very well controlled. In the time 220 - 280  
the red line T2 is fairly flat.  There is no sign of any runaway  
reaction - even though the power was applied for a long period. T2  
even looks fairly flat for the period 200-280.  The output power  
Pout detected at the heat exchanger, however, is anything

[Vo]:

[Frank Heimerzheim]

Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

[Axil Axil]

The hyperlink to graph 3 is mistakenly pointing to graph 2 I think.


On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:

>
> On Oct 10, 2011, at 4:57 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
>
> Ed Storms said it was ok for me to post the following analysis he made:
>>
>> * * * * * *
>>
>> A careful examination of the attached graph reveals an interesting
>> conclusion.  The Pout (power out) and the Eout (Energy out) appear to
>> describe the net excess, not the total as everyone seems to assume.
>>
>> Power is applied to the internal heater, showed by the red dots, until
>> extra power starts to increase starting at 140 min.  The power to the heater
>> is turned off for a short time at 160 min because the excess power starts to
>> rise. This interruption of applied power and the resulting reduced
>> temperature of the Ni caused the excess to decrease and excess power
>> production is again brought under control. Applied power is interrupted
>> several more times to test the stability of the power-producing reaction.
>> Finally, applied power was turned off at 280 min whereupon the extra power
>> increased and reached a relatively stable value. The variations in excess
>> power production after 280 min are expected as the nuclear reaction responds
>> to variations in local temperature in the Ni.  The nuclear reaction slowly
>> decayed away and the test was terminated before it stopped all together.
>>
>> I make two conclusions from this behavior.
>> 1. The amount of energy produced was far in excess of any possible
>> chemical source.
>> 2. The energy-producing reaction is unstable and difficult to control. It
>> also slowly becomes less productive unless the temperature is increased by
>> an external source of power that can increase the temperature of the Ni,
>> thereby causing a greater output of energy.  This means the energy-producing
>> reaction has a limited life-time, which is what Rossi has indicated.
>>
>> If the Pout and E out are interpreted as net excess, the graph makes
>> perfect sense and is consistent with how such a device must behave.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> I provided two spreadsheets from which the graphs were produced:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.**pdf
>
> The latter one uses the raw data, the former has an 0.8°C bias applied to
> Delta T to compensate for probable thermocouple error, as noted in the
> "DISCUSSION OF GRAPH 4" section of the review:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.**pdf
>
> The graphs were taken from the spread sheet with the bias. The above seems
> to refer to Graph 1, which is in the review, but also in higher resolution
> here:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/RossiGraph.png
>
> Graph 2 in high resolution is here:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png
>
> Graph 3 in high resolution is here:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png
>
> I do not see how Pout and Eout can be "interpreted as net excess". I am
> possibly missing the intended meaning of this phrase.
>
> Delta Eout is the thermal energy detected by the heat exchanger for the
> time period of a given row. Pout and Eout are created from this number. Pout
> is determined by a ratio of Delta Eout to the time period.  Eout is just a
> sum of all the Delta Eout values to the end of the individual time periods
> each row represents. These numbers represent the thermal output.
>
> The net output, i.e. output energy - input energy, is not in the graph.  It
> is in the spread sheet column "Net E".
>
> One way to interpret Ed's phrase "net excess" is to consider the thermal
> energy still stored in the E-cat as part of the total thermal energy
> generated.  That which has escaped and been measured by the heat exchanger
> is the net of total thermal energy generated minus the still stored energy.
> However, this interpretation does not seem to add anything to understanding
> discussion.
>
> When cold water is run through the E-cat sufficiently long that it cools,
> and if there is no nuclear energy generated, and the calorimetry works well,
> then "Net E" should be zero at the end of the run, and COP should be 1. No
> energy is then left stored in the E-cat at the end. This is how a control
> run should be evaluated, and a live test done.
>
> The power Pin applied to the heater in Graph 1 is indeed the red line. In
> Graph 2 it is the brown line.
>
> I think Graphs 2 and 3 have much to say about how well controlled the
> reaction is, if there indeed is one. In Graph 2 we can see the E-cat
> temperature is very well controlled. In t