[Vo]:Rossi's London address may be a "virtual office" or mail drop

[Mary Yugo]

>From ecatnews.com:

"Today the site looks reasonably professional, having had a makeover and
now claims to be the first site in the world to be taking offical orders
for Rossi’s eCat technology. Upon subscribing to their newsletter, the
confirmation email conatins the following address:

ECAT.COM
New Broad Street House
35 New Broad Street
London, EC2M 1NH"

But a quick search of Google reveals that the address is a Regus virtual
office location:

http://www.regus.co.uk/locations/virtual-office/london-new-broad-street

While there could be a real shared facility there, the most common use of
this address is as
"Mailbox Plus New Broad Street House, 35 New Broad Street,, London, EC2M 1NH

Never miss another important delivery.

We’ll take care of your post and sign for parcels, all received at an
impressive mailing address of your choice."



Shared office services in London can start as low as 30 Euros a month
according to Loonyman on another forum.

Is that really Ecat and Rossi headquarters offices for Northern Europe as
Rossi says on his blog?  Maybe an enterprising person in London can tell us?

[Vo]:New european commercial E-Cat Offer

[peter . heckert]

See:

http://www.transaltec.ch/facma/design.php?design=2

This is in German language.
Trans Altec AG, Switzerland is offering E-Cats.
Transaltec AG belongs to Ing Adolf Schneider. He is a real engineer, studied at 
university.
He previously advertised Mike Brady's magnetmotors in the "NET" magazine which 
he owns.
He also was a witness for Mike Brady at court in munich.
Authors who write in the "Jupiter Verlag" (which he owns) said at court they 
have seen the magnet motors running.
Trans Altec AG other overunity magnet- and electrodynamic Generators.

He claims he got Distribution rights from Rossi.
Indeed he visited Rossi in Bologna, which is documented here:
http://www.borderlands.de/net_pdf/NET0911S4-15.pdf
Its in german.
See page 12 and following.

Again it is interesting to see the E-cat business growing and expanding.
Also interesting are the business partners that Rossi chooses.

Peter

[Vo]:How expensive is testing Widom-Larsen theory?

[pagnucco]

I am not an experimentalist, but is testing W-L theory expensive?

If we forget about measuring heat, several of Larsen's presentations may
provide enough details for experiments that could yield transmutations. 
See, for example -

"Lattice Energy LLC- Mystery of the Missing Nickel and Vanadium-Nov 6 2011"
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-lcc-mystery-of-the-missing-nickel-and-vanadiumnov-6-2011

By outsourcing before/after material testing to a commercial atomic
spectroscopy lab, could amateurs or college labs prove W-L theory?

Re: [Vo]:What motivated AR to take Widom Larsen theory seriously?

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Does AR wants Krivit to be discredited if he fails with the ecat? Or is it
> a technical motivation?


The latter, I am sure. AR and I do not give a fart about what Krivit thinks
about theory, or anything else. Why would he support a physical theory he
finds unconvincing? He would not play strange political mind games just to
hurt Krivit. If Rossi succeeds, Krivit will be a laughingstock. He will
soon be forgotten, along with Park and the others. Rossi knows that.
Everyone knows it. Krivit has doubled down on his bet against Rossi. He has
staked his entire future as a reporter and cold fusion pundit on this.

That was a dumb thing to do. Even if I were sure that a cold fusion
researcher is wrong, and fraudulent, I would never attack him the way
Krivit attacks Rossi, McKubre and others he disagree with. I would not do
that because:

It is not my job to police this field. It is not anyone's job. If you don't
like some research, ignore it.

If there is a problem, other people will see it as clearly as I do. They do
not need my help.

There is no point in alienating people and making everyone angry. Bad
research fades away on its own, without fighting or politics.

Customer fraud is ruled out by the kinds of contracts Rossi asks for. with
escrow accounts and open return policy. He could never sell a reactor with
any other kind of contract. He knows that as well as I do. We don't need to
worry about customer fraud, and as far as I know, Rossi has no investors.
Granted, in Italy they put him in prison for defrauding his stockholders in
a company in which he himself was the only stockholder. In other words, as
far as anyone knows he has only defrauded himself. In most countries that
is not a crime. It is rather difficult to imagine how it could be. It does
not sound like the beginning of a crime wave.

Defrauding oneself would make for a difficult civil suit. Especially if you
chose to represent yourself without council. You would have to hop back and
forth from one table to the other, and from the witness stand to the
lawyer's table, while testifying both for and against yourself. That would
be considered a farce anywhere other than Italy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Blank Run Protocol

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:

It would be if Rossi wasn't pouring power into the smaller E-cat
> continuously . . .
>

1. "Pour" has no technical meaning in this context. Perhaps you mean
"supply a lot of power." If that is what you mean, you are wrong. Input
power is much smaller than output, and there is no chance it might be
confused with output. In many cases output is much larger than the highest
possible input. For example, during the 18-hour run, the wires would have
burned if the heat had been caused by input.

2. It is not continuous. He has demonstrated the reactor in self-sustaining
mode with no input power.



> and into the larger one for a substantial preheating period.
>

Only one test has had a substantial preheating period, and there is no
doubt that all of that heat came out long before the self sustaining event.
There was no energy storage; the effect was already exothermic.



> And then the so-called self sustaining run is always short.
>

The Oct 6 self sustaining event was 4 hours. Ten minutes would have been
long enough. In 10 min. you would have seen the boiling stop abruptly
temperature decline rapidly. Four hours is 24 times longer than this. There
is no doubt whatever that after 40 min. the reactor should have been stone
cold. By that measure this run is 5 times longer than needed. It would not
be more convincing in any sense if it had gone on a million times longer.
There is *absolutely no technical reason* to demand a longer run. It is a
distraction.

I am sure that if Rossi ran for 8 hours, Yogo would still say "not long
enough." Rossi already ran 18 hours and that wasn't long enough. If he ran
for 100 or 1,000 hours she would then say that 5 kW is not enough, it must
be 20 kW, and if he did this she would demand 50 kW. It will never be long
enough or hot enough for her. The instruments and first principle proof
will never be good enough. She will move the goal posts indefinitely. Rossi
is 100% right when he says it is a waste of time trying to convince such
people.

Frankly, anyone who was not convinced by McKubre back in 1992 will never be
convinced by any amount of scientific proof or by any prototype device.
Anyone who does not understand McKubre is incapable of understanding Rossi.
The difference in scale does not make McKubre harder to understand or less
convincing.



>   It would be pointless except that a lot of people go round and round
> about adequacy of the measurements and related issues.
>

The people going round and round are talking nonsense. Running running much
longer would not answer any of the imaginary concerns they have raised. All
of the proposed methods of "storing heat" would fail in 40 min. just as
surely as they would in ten years of operation. Any method of secretly
introducing electricity or fuel in a fraudulent system would work
indefinitely. Running longer would not eliminate a fraud, or an instrument
artifact for that matter.

In any case, these people are sure to blather on inventing endless
impossible scenarios until the day the mass media announces Rossi's device
is real. They are incapable of thinking for themselves or doing natural
science;  i.e., understanding that a pot of hot water taken off the stove
must cool down.



> There'd be no issue about the measurements if the runs were much MUCH
> longer.
>

Of course there would be an issue! If it is a measurement error (an
instrument artifact) it will last forever. The reactor cannot actually
remain above room temperature for more than 40 min. It cannot remain warm
to the touch. So any observer can be certain it really was producing
anomalous heat just by holding a hand nearby it. That is not subject to any
artifact. That is why none of the skeptics will ever talk about the fact
that it remains hot to the touch. They insist that the discussion be
limited to invisible and impossible measurement errors instead instead of
physical facts.



>   As it is, we're still arguing about the 8:1 error that can be due to wet
> steam and the issue of where the thermocouples were in the October 6
> experiment.
>

Yes, of course. We are arguing about where the thermocouples were placed
BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE. It is a red herring; a
distraction; an idiotic diversion from the real issues. Skeptics insist on
talking about this red herring only. They will never talk about the
actual physical facts, because the facts prove they are wrong. Their
fantasies about how the thermocouples are also nonsense, but that does not
matter; these fantasies are only intended to confuse the issue and divert
attention from the facts. No one who understands thermocouples actually
believes these are wrong by more than a fraction of a degree, and that
would have no effect on the conclusion. The point is, you can argue about
that in circles forever, whereas only an idiot would argue that a metal
surface the burns someone is not hot.

- Jed

[Vo]:What motivated AR to take Widom Larsen theory seriously?

[Daniel Rocha]

Does AR wants Krivit to be discredited if he fails with the ecat? Or is it
a technical motivation?

Here is the link:

http://ecat.com/ecat-technology/ecat-science

Re: [Vo]:Blank Run Protocol

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Alan J Fletcher  wrote:
>
> 4. Rossi purges the core, eg with air or Nitrogen, until there is a very
>> small chance of hydrogen being left.
>>
>
> That can be hard to do, and really hard to know if you have succeeded. It
> might take a couple of weeks. Ed Storms devised automatic equipment to do
> something like this the Case experiment. It cycled through added gas, and
> then pulled a vacuum.
>
> I guess N would be okay but air may permanently contaminate it. My guess
> is that a vacuum would be your best bet.
>
> This seems like a pointless exercise  to me. Of course I understand the
> necessity for blank runs and controls when you are trying to measure a
> fraction of a watt, or even ~10 W. But with kilowatt levels of heat that
> anyone can confirm by sense of touch, running a blank is ridiculous.
>

It would be if Rossi wasn't pouring power into the smaller E-cat
continuously and into the larger one for a substantial preheating period.
And then the so-called self sustaining run is always short.  It would be
pointless except that a lot of people go round and round about adequacy of
the measurements and related issues.

There'd be no issue about the measurements if the runs were much MUCH
longer.  As it is, we're still arguing about the 8:1 error that can be due
to wet steam and the issue of where the thermocouples were in the October 6
experiment.   The calibration run would remove those uncertainties.  There
is no need to flush anything.  Just take a new E-cat before it's ever seen
hydrogen and run that as a blank.  Now that I think about it, I have no
idea why you're worried about flushing the thing -- that was your idea.  I
never suggested it.  Rossi always charges E-cats with hydrogen just before
running them.  I have to assume that if he didn't, they wouldn't work!  Or
get a brand new one.  He said he made hundreds!


> We are talking about a heat release on the scale of everyday experience,
> like you get when you turn on your stove, or a room heater.  When you see a
> steaming hot cooked turkey, do you ask yourself: "Could this really be
> cooked? Is it really hot? I'll need a frozen turkey as a control before I
> can be sure!"   Ask a cook whether she can tell a frozen turkey from a
> cooked one. She will think you are crazy. And yes, that *is* the
> magnitude of the difference we are talking about. That is not hyperbole.
>

I don't understand the similarity you see between Rossi's obscure and
obfuscated experiments, all done on his venue, entirely by whatever method
HE chooses, and with his power, coolant, pump and most of the measuring
gear and telling the difference between a cooked or a frozen turkey!  It's
OK.  I get confused between Greece and Turkey anyway.  But seriously, you
are advocating proper testing to Rossi and resisting it here and
rationalizing incomplete and inadequate tests.  Are you of two minds?



>
> Do you find that you must look at a parked car for reference before you
> can be sure that one driving past you at 20 miles an hour is moving or
> standing still?
>

Dreadful analogy.

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos seems to be upset at U of Bologna

[Jed Rothwell]

Man on Bridges  wrote:


> However Greek and Italian are both socalled SOV languages, so that could
> possibly make things a lot easier for both of them as they both can remain
> in the SOV pattern,
> while for them to communicate in English they both have to go from SOV to
> SVO and vice versa.
>

Japanese is SOV. I have never had a problem switching back and forth. I
think in Japanese when speaking or reading it, albeit with interference
from English. Sometimes vice versa.

People should avoid translation in their minds. Language training should
discourage that.

Some people who try to learn a third language as adults have reported a lot
of interference from language #2. More than #1.

Edwin O.Reischauer learned English first, then Japanese as a child. Toward
the end of his life he suffered a stroke that wiped out his ability to
speak Japanese, but left him able to understand it. That's strange!

Reischauer took Japanese lessons from a Japanese friend of mine when he was
ambassador, while he was being shaved in the morning. He would hand my
friend the day's Yomiuri newspaper in Japanese. Reischauer would look at
the English edition and read the editorial aloud in Japanese. My friend
would smoke a cigarette and say "Yup. Yeah. That's it . . . No, that's
sendou, not syudou" The embassy had an interpreter who I have heard
was phenomenally good. As a joke, Reischauer would sometimes start to speak
in Japanese to a Japanese audience, and the interpreter would translate it
into English. Not unlike the interpreter scene in Woody Allen's "Bananas."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF-AcR14Km8

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane?

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 17-11-2011 2:53, Terry Blanton wrote:

Yessir, looks just like one:

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

Hmmm, don't you think this one looks a lot better ;-)

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

Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane?

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:51 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

> Actually, it looks to me like a male guppy following after a female guppy...
> I know these things. As a small child with an aquarium, I raised a lot of
> guppies.

Yessir, looks just like one:

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

T

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos seems to be upset at U of Bologna

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 17-11-2011 2:19, Alan J Fletcher wrote:

At 05:02 PM 11/16/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote
By the way, Stremmenos writes in difficult Italian, even for native 
speakers.


HE thinks in Greek, which he then translates to Italian. Rossi does 
the same thing with Italian/English. I wonder how they manage to get 
along!


Yep, many people on this mailing list think in their foreign language 
and translate into English, which is a socalled SVO (Subject Verb 
Object) language.
However Greek and Italian are both socalled SOV languages, so that could 
possibly make things a lot easier for both of them as they both can 
remain in the SOV pattern,
while for them to communicate in English they both have to go from SOV 
to SVO and vice versa.


See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object-verb

Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Blank Run Protocol

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

4. Rossi purges the core, eg with air or Nitrogen, until there is a very
> small chance of hydrogen being left.
>

That can be hard to do, and really hard to know if you have succeeded. It
might take a couple of weeks. Ed Storms devised automatic equipment to do
something like this the Case experiment. It cycled through added gas, and
then pulled a vacuum.

I guess N would be okay but air may permanently contaminate it. My guess is
that a vacuum would be your best bet.

This seems like a pointless exercise  to me. Of course I understand the
necessity for blank runs and controls when you are trying to measure a
fraction of a watt, or even ~10 W. But with kilowatt levels of heat that
anyone can confirm by sense of touch, running a blank is ridiculous.

We are talking about a heat release on the scale of everyday experience,
like you get when you turn on your stove, or a room heater.  When you see a
steaming hot cooked turkey, do you ask yourself: "Could this really be
cooked? Is it really hot? I'll need a frozen turkey as a control before I
can be sure!"

Ask a cook whether she can tell a frozen turkey from a cooked one. She will
think you are crazy. And yes, that *is* the magnitude of the difference we
are talking about. That is not hyperbole.

Do you find that you must look at a parked car for reference before you can
be sure that one driving past you at 20 miles an hour is moving or standing
still?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Blank Run Protocol

[Alan J Fletcher]

Coming in late on the blank debate.

I have no objection to a blank, but if I only had limited time I'd go 
with a longer live-run, particularly if self-sustained.


But if you WANT a blank/dry  run, I suggest the following protocol.

1. Rossi prepares the ecat, charged with Nickel and Hydrogen
2. Rossi starts a live run, from empty and cold. The exact pump, 
power level and time settings are noted.
3. Rossi discharges the hydrogen, cools it down and drains it. That's 
the end of the live run.
4. Rossi purges the core, eg with air or Nitrogen, until there is a 
very small chance of hydrogen being left.
He might even do some dummy runs, until he is convinced there is 
no excess power.

5. Rossi restarts a blank run, following exactly the same protocols (2 and 3)
6. The equipment is disassembled for inspection. (eg Oct 6)

This avoids any risk of the eCat core being damaged by the dry run. 
One load of nickel is only $10.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Berke Durak]

Joshua Cude wrote:

> Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the
> data is entirely consistent with no excess heat.

Not according to Ny Teknik's "This is how the test was done" box at
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece

> Subtracting the energy supplied during startup, about 320 kWh at an
> average power of 160 kW, the net energy would still be 2249 kWh. In
> this case the energy output during startup should also be estimated
> and added.

That's 320e3 x 3600 = 576 MJ.  So if you trust the reported figures,
then there clearly is plenty of excess energy, and the only
non-cold-fusion explanation involves an international conspiracy and
technologically non-trivial deception.
-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:Bowing out of the discussion for a while

[Mary Yugo]

Before you go, if you have a moment, did I answer your objection to the
blank test understandably (if not satisfactorily).  I want to be sure I
didn't misunderstand you (again).

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> **
>
>
> On 11-11-16 06:16 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.
>> The error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if (and
>> only if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...
>>
>> Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs must
>> run "long enough" so the excess due to adsorption "is accounted for" -- as
>> I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the calorimetry.
>>
>> As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher *than*the 
>> blank, or no, it's not.
>>
>
> No.  "The signature in the blank is higher?"  What does that mean?
>
>
> It means you didn't read it right.  I said "higher *than* the blank", not
> "higher *in* the blank".
>
> Obviously.
>
> Obvious, at any rate, if you devote more than about half a second to
> trying to understand it.
>

You're right -- my error -- trying to go too fast.  Sorry.  I think I
answered that objection even though I misread it.  If not to your
satisfaction, please let me know and I can try again.

[Vo]:Bowing out of the discussion for a while

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I've got too much other stuff I'm not getting too, and the Rossi 
discussion is looking to be interminable.


If my will power falters I'll unsubscribe for a while; absent that I'll 
be trying to ignore goings-on here, partly in the no doubt vain hope 
that something will have been resolved when I next look in.


'Til later...

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos seems to be upset at U of Bologna

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Akira Shirakawa
wrote:

>
> So yes, it appears to me he is upset at the U of Bologna.
> By the way, Stremmenos writes in difficult Italian, even for native
> speakers.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.
>
>
Thanks, SA.  I think he's Greek which may explain the difficult Italian.

Reading between the lines, I think he's complaining that the E-cat has not
yet been tested by UBO and maybe that UBO has been refusing to do it for
free.

This doesn't seem to bear directly on the question of whether they got one
or not.  But someone asked Rossi on his blog if they (U of U and U of B)
would be free to announce when they got an E-cat.  And he said yes even
though the work itself will be secret.  So far, neither has announced
getting an E-cat and both have denied working officially in any way with
Rossi.  I find it odd that neither has an E-cat yet after all the chitchat
from Rossi about how he was eager to have the device tested at Universities
-- and that started months ago.

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos seems to be upset at U of Bologna

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 05:02 PM 11/16/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote

By the way, Stremmenos writes in difficult Italian, even for native speakers.


HE thinks in Greek, which he then translates to Italian. Rossi does 
the same thing with Italian/English. I wonder how they manage to get along!

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-16 06:16 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:


I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a
problem.  The error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to
accept it if (and only if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...

Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank
runs must run "long enough" so the excess due to adsorption "is
accounted for" -- as I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing
over the calorimetry.

As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher
_than_ the blank, or no, it's not.


No.  "The signature in the blank is higher?"  What does that mean?


It means you didn't read it right.  I said "higher /*than*/ the blank", 
not "higher */in/* the blank".


Obviously.

Obvious, at any rate, if you devote more than about half a second to 
trying to understand it.

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

Final version 1 is at
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_**ecat_eai_table.php


Good job.

It is hard to keep track of these details, isn't it?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio

[Alan J Fletcher]

Final version 1 is at
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table.php

I added Krivit's demo, Links, Mat's emails and a few details.

RE: [Vo]:When faced with reality

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Jed,

Thank you for taking some time out to answer this query. A willingness to
share your knowledge of certain historical events is much appreciated.

Regarding Rossi, will history repeat itself, again? I suspect we must wait
for some more shoes to drop for the definitive answer. All I can say is that
from my perspective I do get the impression that a lot of shoes have already
have dropped. As such, I would be very reluctant to bet on a premise that
Rossi is a scammer. Such odds don't look good to me. ;-)

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

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos seems to be upset at U of Bologna

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-11-17 01:32, Mary Yugo wrote:

Google translate is difficult -- maybe we have an Italian speaker here?


Stremmenos is perplexed at the matters regarding the contract signed 
between EFA and the University of Bologna, and the pressure the 
University is receiving from many to rescind from it.


He says that being at the University of Bologna since the '50s, he was 
taught that the main duty of the University should be to transmit 
current knowledge and to create new one.


He doesn't think that a lack of (little) funds should stop the 
University to do research on a matter of this scope and he is 
disappointed to find out that that bureaucracy and trivial economic 
matters prevail over its original duties (of transmitting knowledge and 
creating new one).


He then points to a 12 years old article written by him on the official 
journal of the Italian Chemical Society, describing early Ni-H 
experiments, hoping that the pressure and skepticism he and his group 
received from their peers (and supposedly slowed the research?) won't 
show again.


* * *

So yes, it appears to me he is upset at the U of Bologna.
By the way, Stremmenos writes in difficult Italian, even for native 
speakers.


Cheers,
S.A.

RE: [Vo]:Is it a Bird? Is it a Plane?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

Good heavens! This video is suggesting the possibly of an extraterrestrial
craft closely tailing a military aircraft? Are they serious??? Whatever.

Actually, it looks to me like a male guppy following after a female guppy...
I know these things. As a small child with an aquarium, I raised a lot of
guppies.

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

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos seems to be upset at U of Bologna

[Daniel Rocha]

Oh, I just checked the website. That is a letter published in a journal,
http://www.soc.chim.it/riviste/chimica_industria, in April 1999. It is not
related to the ecat.

2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha 

> I understood something slightly different. UB was blackmailed to have the
> funding of many of its projects cut if it proceeded to test the e-cat.
>
>

[Vo]:granular nickel

[fznidarsic]

costs $900/lb..where can I find cheaper.

Re: [Vo]:Stremmenos seems to be upset at U of Bologna

[Daniel Rocha]

I understood something slightly different. UB was blackmailed to have the
funding of many of its projects cut if it proceeded to test the e-cat.

2011/11/16 Mary Yugo 

> Google translate is difficult -- maybe we have an Italian speaker here?
>
> As I read it (badly in translation) it seems Stremmenos is saying he can't
> understand why U of B won't proceed to test Rossi's machine without being
> given money.  I wonder he realizes they probably haven't been given an
> E-cat either!  Without that, it's even harder to run tests!!
>
> "I am puzzled to say the least, according to the vicissitudes of the
> contract with the Company UniBo EFA (E-Cat, Red) ... and the quote of
> Daniel, "... the pressures that affected the University of Bologna to
> disengage from the project" ... !...?... [editor's note, the exact pace at
> which it refers Stremmenos "... there are certain people, or rather groups of
> interest, which in addition to spreading mud everywhere, using even the
> journalists who know and / or may affect, are placing the 'University of 
> Bologna
> to pressure to disengage from the contract with Rossi, who is activated or
> not. "]
>
>  Since in this University from the early fifties I was born and grew
> up scientifically, I would do certain assessments: my great masters of
> that time as Professor Bonino and others, have taught me that the
> University has the main task of transmitting knowledge of current and
> create new ...
>
>  I do not think missing now these small funds for research on a topic of
> this scope ... ...!
>
>  The involution and the deviation from the vocation renaissance of
> this great University, the prevalence of poor bureaucratic criteria in
> science, management of funds in small groups and departments other causes 
> degenerative
> diseases, prevent the open and generous ... to new scientific horizons ...
>
>  I enclose my personal experience that I hope is acceptable to your
> readers, dating back to the '90s when in parallel with Sergio Focardi we
> carried out this research in the middle of the incredulity of my
> colleagues (it was fashionable ...!) e. .. tolerance of Academic Bodies.
>
>  So much for history ... and hope does not happen again ...
>
>  Christos Stremmenos"
>
> "Cari Amici
>
> Sono perplesso a dir poco, seguendo le vicissitudini del contratto UniBo
> con la Società EFA (E-Cat, Rossi)… e per la citazione di Daniele, “...le
> pressioni che l’Università di Bologna subisce per sganciarsi dal
> progetto”…!...?... [ndr, il passo esatto a cui si riferisce Stremmenos è 
> *"...vi
> sono certe persone, o meglio gruppi di interesse, che oltre a spargere
> fango ovunque, utilizzando pure i giornalisti che conoscono e/o possono
> influenzare, stanno sottoponendo l'Università di Bologna a pressioni
> affinché si sganci dal contratto con Rossi, attivato o no che sia"*.]
>
> Poiché in questa Università dai primi anni cinquanta sono nato e cresciuto
> scientificamente, mi permetto di fare certe valutazioni: i miei grandi
> Maestri di quell’epoca come il Prof. Bonino ed altri, mi hanno insegnato
> che l’Università ha la principale mansione di trasmettere la conoscenza
> attuale e crearne della nuova...
>
> Non credo che manchino adesso questi esigui fondi per una ricerca su una
> tematica di questa… portata...!
>
> L’involuzione e lo scostamento dalla vocazione rinascimentale di questa
> grande Università, il prevalere dei miseri criteri burocratici nella
> scienza, i gruppuscoli gestionali dei fondi nei Dipartimenti ed altre cause
> degenerative, impediscono la generosa apertura... verso nuovi orizzonti
> scientifici...
>
> Allego una mia personale esperienza che spero sia gradita ai vostri
> lettori, risalente agli anni ’90 quando in parallelo con Sergio Focardi
> portavamo avanti questo tema di ricerca in mezzo all’incredulità dei
> colleghi (era di moda...!) e... la tolleranza degli Organi Accademici.
>
> Questo per la Storia… e speriamo non si ripeta…
>
> Christos Stremmenos"
>
> From
> http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/lettera-del-professor-stremmenos-al.html
>
>
>

[Vo]:Stremmenos seems to be upset at U of Bologna

[Mary Yugo]

Google translate is difficult -- maybe we have an Italian speaker here?

As I read it (badly in translation) it seems Stremmenos is saying he can't
understand why U of B won't proceed to test Rossi's machine without being
given money.  I wonder he realizes they probably haven't been given an
E-cat either!  Without that, it's even harder to run tests!!

"I am puzzled to say the least, according to the vicissitudes of the
contract with the Company UniBo EFA (E-Cat, Red) ... and the quote of
Daniel, "... the pressures that affected the University of Bologna to
disengage from the project" ... !...?... [editor's note, the exact pace at
which it refers Stremmenos "... there are certain people, or rather groups of
interest, which in addition to spreading mud everywhere, using even the
journalists who know and / or may affect, are placing the 'University
of Bologna
to pressure to disengage from the contract with Rossi, who is activated or
not. "]

 Since in this University from the early fifties I was born and grew up
scientifically, I would do certain assessments: my great masters of that
time as Professor Bonino and others, have taught me that the University has the
main task of transmitting knowledge of current and create new ...

 I do not think missing now these small funds for research on a topic of
this scope ... ...!

 The involution and the deviation from the vocation renaissance of this
great University, the prevalence of poor bureaucratic criteria in science,
management of funds in small groups and departments other causes degenerative
diseases, prevent the open and generous ... to new scientific horizons ...

 I enclose my personal experience that I hope is acceptable to your
readers, dating back to the '90s when in parallel with Sergio Focardi we
carried out this research in the middle of the incredulity of my colleagues
(it was fashionable ...!) e. .. tolerance of Academic Bodies.

 So much for history ... and hope does not happen again ...

 Christos Stremmenos"

"Cari Amici

Sono perplesso a dir poco, seguendo le vicissitudini del contratto UniBo
con la Società EFA (E-Cat, Rossi)… e per la citazione di Daniele, “...le
pressioni che l’Università di Bologna subisce per sganciarsi dal
progetto”…!...?... [ndr, il passo esatto a cui si riferisce Stremmenos
è *"...vi
sono certe persone, o meglio gruppi di interesse, che oltre a spargere
fango ovunque, utilizzando pure i giornalisti che conoscono e/o possono
influenzare, stanno sottoponendo l'Università di Bologna a pressioni
affinché si sganci dal contratto con Rossi, attivato o no che sia"*.]

Poiché in questa Università dai primi anni cinquanta sono nato e cresciuto
scientificamente, mi permetto di fare certe valutazioni: i miei grandi
Maestri di quell’epoca come il Prof. Bonino ed altri, mi hanno insegnato
che l’Università ha la principale mansione di trasmettere la conoscenza
attuale e crearne della nuova...

Non credo che manchino adesso questi esigui fondi per una ricerca su una
tematica di questa… portata...!

L’involuzione e lo scostamento dalla vocazione rinascimentale di questa
grande Università, il prevalere dei miseri criteri burocratici nella
scienza, i gruppuscoli gestionali dei fondi nei Dipartimenti ed altre cause
degenerative, impediscono la generosa apertura... verso nuovi orizzonti
scientifici...

Allego una mia personale esperienza che spero sia gradita ai vostri
lettori, risalente agli anni ’90 quando in parallelo con Sergio Focardi
portavamo avanti questo tema di ricerca in mezzo all’incredulità dei
colleghi (era di moda...!) e... la tolleranza degli Organi Accademici.

Questo per la Storia… e speriamo non si ripeta…

Christos Stremmenos"

From
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/11/lettera-del-professor-stremmenos-al.html

[Vo]:nominate Rossi opps changed password

[fznidarsic]

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/awards/2012

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 03:24 PM 11/16/2011, Terry Blanton wrote:
2)  Take a look at the
exhaust cap.  A genset running full bore vent
cap will be at a 90 degree angle to the exhaust pipe.  In Mat's
vid,
it looks to be at about 80 degrees or less.  A genset exhaust vent
cap
will open this wide on idle.  Sure, a small detail, but thar be
the
devil!
I predicted that would come up 

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53977.html
d) You can clearly see the exhaust cap on the generator [01:19] ...
lets see : we can calculate the exhaust velocity from the angle of the
cap and the strength of gravity and/or the restraining spring and from
that we can calculate the power being generated. 

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Joshua Cude 
> wrote:
>
> > Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge
> > may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because
> > nuclear reactions are not needed to explain the observations even if the
> > genset had been shut down.
>
> No, Josh, but I have installed several Caterpillar gensets.  The cap
> stop is more like 130 degrees.
>
> I wouldn't josh you, Cude!
>

OK, I believe you. But like I said, zero input from the genset is needed
during "self-sustained" operation to explain the observations without
nuclear reactions. But do you have some idea of the power corresponding to
80 degrees open?

Re: [Vo]:thin Ni layer at center of reactor core. was Official ECAT site, finally?

[Ron Wormus]

If I recall correctly H2 is an excellent thermal conductor. Most large steam turbine generators use 
Hydrogen for cooling.

Ron

--On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:25 PM -0500 francis 
 wrote:




Daniel,

   It appears to contain new information that- if correct-  will 
make for interesting
discussion. [snip] The fuel, Nickel of very fine granularity + Hydrogen + 
catalyst, is placed in
a thin layer at the center of the reactor core.[/snip] How can the heat be 
generated in the
center of the reactor and still heat sink effectively to the walls? I know 
plasma is a better
electrical conductor than metal but can it provide this sort of thermal 
conduction? Or is the
reaction primarily occurring in the plasma while the powder layer and catalyst 
supply fractional
Rydberg hydrogen into an homogenized plasma atmosphere filling the entire 
volume inside the
reactor core?





Fran



[Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?

Daniel Rocha
Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:33:27 -0800
This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the

October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an

official website.



http://ecat.com/

Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:58 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>> I recall the manometer registered 3 bar, which is 300kPa which
>> corresponds to a potential liquid water temperature of 130C at the exit
>> from the reaction vessel.  This doesn't leave him a lot of room to play
>> with before bubbles start forming on the heat transfer surface of the
>> reactors, but there is some -- enough to make the system plausible.
>>
>>
> BTW:  The heat represented by the difference between 130C and 100C
> (30calories/gm) is about 5% of the heat of vaporization of water:
>
> ([30 * calorie] / gramm) / ([2201.4 * joule] / gramm)
> = 0.057056419
>
> So that is Rossi's margin of error in the mass flow rate.
>
>
But if it's liquid at 105C, and the local bp is 130C, then the water
temperature will be proportional to the ecat power. And therefore a narrow
range of temperatures corresponds to an implausibly narrow range of ecat
power.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi ecat website - confused

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 16-11-2011 12:22, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Andrea Rossi, if you read this forum, as I believe you do, take that 
web site down as it is not helping to tell your story. Do not let 
Sterling or any body else hijack your story. It is your to tell.


That's probably also the reason why they (Andrea and his wife) launched 
the site ecat.com to get some positive exposure.
I'm glad they finally took this step, while building the site in the 
meantime they were linking to other sites.


I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the comments entered by 
"Andrea" on the JoNP site are actually provided by his wife and 
occasionally a comment is added by Andrea himself when it is typed in 
Capitols.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:41 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

>
> I recall the manometer registered 3 bar,
>

Where? I didn't see any reference to pressure inside the conduits in the
Oct 28 ecat, but I might have missed it.

which is 300kPa which corresponds to a potential liquid water temperature
> of 130C at the exit from the reaction vessel.
>

Even if that's right, liquid water at 130C or less is still less than 100
kW total output power. It will not flash to dry steam when released to
atmosphere.


This doesn't leave him a lot of room to play with before bubbles start
> forming on the heat transfer surface of the reactors, but there is some --
> enough to make the system plausible.
>
>
It doesn't make temperature regulation plausible. You have not explained
how that works.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Mary Yugo]

"ECAT.com interviews Mats Lewan"

I don't think I would call it an interview.  It's a monologue.  And a not
very good one at that.

http://ecat.com/ecat-videos/ecat-com-interviews-mats-lewan

Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:12 AM, James Bowery wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I've now conceived of how the temperature is stabilized without
>>> feedback control, and it doesn't require anything like mixed phase flow.
>>> All it requires is pressure in the reaction vessel high enough to keep the
>>> liquid flow at the boiling point (for that pressure) and transport away all
>>> the power within the heat of latent heat provided by the nearly
>>> discontinuous rise in effective specific heat of water at the boiling point.
>>>
>>
>> Again, I don't follow. That sounds like a mixture of phases. The specific
>> heat of water decreases at the boiling point. The specific heat of steam is
>> about half that of liquid water, but it's more the heat transfer
>> coefficient that is relevant there. If you're talking about the specific
>> heat of liquid, it does not change discontinuously anywhere.
>>
>
> My use of the qualifier "effective specific heat" could be replaced by
> "effective mass flow rate" --
>

But the effective mass flow rate does not change discontinuously at the
boiling point. It changes continuously as the degree of vaporization
changes continuously.



> the point is to project the effect of latent heat of vaporization into
> another dimension to illustrate its temperature control effect.
>

So, the temperature is being regulated by a mixture of phases, then.

The water pump pressure feeding the E-Cat could be very high relative to
>>> atmospheric pressure, and the pressure drop at the exit from the E-Cat
>>> could be quite substantial prior to the thermocouple, resulting in a dry --
>>> even superheated -- steam.
>>>
>>
>> No, it would not convert from liquid to dry steam unless the temperature
>> of the liquid water was over 600C, and that would require implausible
>> pressures.
>>
>
> That's true if there is no latent heat of vaporization represented in the
> liquid water.
>

I have no idea what this means, but it sounds like water memory. The
thermal energy in water is determined by the phase, the pressure, and the
temperature. It will not vaporize completely at 1 atm, unless it starts out
at about 600C.


> With careful setting of the water flow rate, one can approach vaporization
> within the reactor vessel without any actual vaporization.
>

Sure, but then the temperature is still strongly dependent on the power
transfer. You don't get temperature regulation if the water is all liquid.

THAT is the critical parameter here.  Indeed, for effective heat transfer,
> you don't want ANY vaporization as the heat transfer drops off
> precipitously as soon as you start forming surface bubbles.
>

That's true. And then what happens is the heating element gets hotter,
increasing the heat transfer rate.


>   For Rossi to allow bubbles to form on the heat transfer surface would be
> dangerous if the reaction rate was indeed proportional to temperature as he
> says.  Did Rossi carefully tweak his resistive heating sustained system so
> that he achieved, say, 200C inside the reaction vessel with a liquid water
> flow very close to, but not achieving vaporization?  At this point, until
> convinced otherwise, I'm not willing to dispense with any further
> investigations on the speculation that he could not have done so.
>

The original objection still stands. If he is not producing vapor, the
stable temperature indicates stable power. Only a mixture of phases
provides regulation.



> You'll have to explain it again for those of us with shit for brains,
>> because it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how you've countered the
>> very simple claim that the well regulated temperature corresponds to a 1%
>> regulation in power, unless there is a mixture of phases.
>>
>
> Where did I call you "shit for brains"?
>

In nextbigfuture in the discussion on the spawar rumor. The moderator took
the salutation (Dear shit for brains) out the same day, but it's still in
the summation. Maybe it was a different James Bowery. Sorry, I regret
bringing it up.

RE: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Robert Leguillon]

Refresh my memory.
If I recall correctly:

1) ecat.com had videos from the recent demonstrations, and is now officially 
affiliated

2) e-cat.com began with the "Countdown to October", then it had the "We've got 
Ssssteam Heat" video, and then was redirected to Google "Green"

Is that right?

> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:36:04 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.
> From: hohlr...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> 
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Akira Shirakawa
>  wrote:
> 
> >> Dear Frank Acland:
> >> Yes, it is the website of our North Europe commercial Branch.
> >> Warm Regards,
> >> A.R.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.A.
> 
> LOL!  Yep, damn good web site, it is!
> 
> T
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Akira Shirakawa
 wrote:

>> Dear Frank Acland:
>> Yes, it is the website of our North Europe commercial Branch.
>> Warm Regards,
>> A.R.
>
> Cheers,
> S.A.

LOL!  Yep, damn good web site, it is!

T

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge
> may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because
> nuclear reactions are not needed to explain the observations even if the
> genset had been shut down.

No, Josh, but I have installed several Caterpillar gensets.  The cap
stop is more like 130 degrees.

I wouldn't josh you, Cude!

T

Re: [Vo]:Andrea rossi confirm ECAT.com is official

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM, David ledin
 wrote:
> Frank Acland
> November 16th, 2011 at 3:34 PM
>
> Dear Andrea Rossi,
>
> The site http://www.ecat.com is now saying it is “In Association with
> Andrea Rossi”. They have an order form for E-Cats, also. Do you have
> an official relationship with this site?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Frank Acland
>
>
>
> #
> Andrea Rossi
> November 16th, 2011 at 5:59 PM
>
> Dear Frank Acland:
> Yes, it is the website of our North Europe commercial Branch.
> Warm Regards,
> A.R.
>

And a darn good web site it is!  The creators apparently also have a
sense of humor.

T

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 17-11-2011 0:17, Akira Shirakawa wrote:

Well, it appears it is:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=33#comment-121582

Dear Frank Acland:
Yes, it is the website of our North Europe commercial Branch.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


This looks really very good and professional, including the certificate 
from the University of Milan.
And I liked his page "ECAT Applications" very much with good and bad 
ideas; gosh were did we see those before ;-)


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> > Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA.
>
> Even is it is a 470 kVA genset, some of the skeptics are likely wrong
> because:
>
> 1)  The measured thermal heat was 479 kW.  A 470 kVA genset will not
> constantly provide 479 kW and also run the ancillary pumps, etc.; and,
>

They measured temperatures, but did not determine the phase of the output
fluid. Therefore the temperatures are consistent with 70 kW output.

And even if it were 479 kW, surely it's not too big a stretch to imagine 10
or 20 kW coming from stored heat or chemical reactions in 107 ecats.



>
> 2)  Take a look at the exhaust cap.  A genset running full bore vent
> cap will be at a 90 degree angle to the exhaust pipe.  In Mat's vid,
> it looks to be at about 80 degrees or less.


Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge
may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because
nuclear reactions are not needed to explain the observations even if the
genset had been shut down.

[Vo]:Andrea rossi confirm ECAT.com is official

[David ledin]

Frank Acland
November 16th, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Dear Andrea Rossi,

The site http://www.ecat.com is now saying it is “In Association with
Andrea Rossi”. They have an order form for E-Cats, also. Do you have
an official relationship with this site?

Thank you!

Best wishes,

Frank Acland



#
Andrea Rossi
November 16th, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Dear Frank Acland:
Yes, it is the website of our North Europe commercial Branch.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

[Vo]:nominate Rossi

[fznidarsic]

http://mail.aol.com/34561-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/DisplayMessage.aspx?ws_popup=true

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA.

Even is it is a 470 kVA genset, some of the skeptics are likely wrong because:

1)  The measured thermal heat was 479 kW.  A 470 kVA genset will not
constantly provide 479 kW and also run the ancillary pumps, etc.; and,

2)  Take a look at the exhaust cap.  A genset running full bore vent
cap will be at a 90 degree angle to the exhaust pipe.  In Mat's vid,
it looks to be at about 80 degrees or less.  A genset exhaust vent cap
will open this wide on idle.  Sure, a small detail, but thar be the
devil!

Okay, let me be the first to say that Rossi could have changed the
nameplate on a 600 kVA generator.  

T
<>

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

We should call this the Mary Yugo school of logic. That which cannot be
> tested or falsified must be true.
>

Straw man as well as unfair and wrong.  Doesn't suit you.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-11-17 00:09, Terry Blanton wrote:


I do not think this is AR's web site.


Well, it appears it is:

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510&cpage=33#comment-121582

Dear Frank Acland:
Yes, it is the website of our North Europe commercial Branch.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> **
> I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.  The
> error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if (and only
> if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...
>
> Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs must
> run "long enough" so the excess due to adsorption "is accounted for" -- as
> I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the calorimetry.
>
> As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher than the
> blank, or no, it's not.
>

No.  "The signature in the blank is higher?"  What does that mean?  That
the blank will run hotter than should be expected?  Why would that be?

A blank would be run without hydrogen.  Nothing else would be different
except for some electrical heat put in. And for calibrating the system, it
need not be a whole lot of heat.

For the run, hydrogen would be added.  If that's exothermic, fine.  You get
more signal temporarily from adding the hydrogen.  You can measure that
also very easily.  Rossi *always* starts the reaction with heat.  Just hold
off the heat, put in the hydrogen.  See if there's heat.  If so it's a
reaction between hydrogen and the powder but not nuclear.  Subtract it.

Actually, I've never seen or heard discussion of any rise in temperature in
a Rossi device until he heats it electrically (one of the things that makes
me suspicious!).   So any heat contribution from just adding hydrogen is
probably no issue -- if it is, just add the hydrogen,  measure the heat
from that operation and then when it's over, cook the darn thing to a
start.  What did I miss here?  What are we arguing about again?

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Akira Shirakawa wrote:
>
>> That's why somebody should ask Rossi if this website is really what it
>> makes it appear to be:
>
> Good idea. I asked him.

I do not think this is AR's web site.  It's just too clean, contains
no current references and, after all, it started off with "We've got
staaamm heat."

I think this is an Onion.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

T

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo wrote:
>
>   Or maybe cold fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the sincere
>> researchers are looking at errors and noise.
>>
>
> You can only believe that if you refuse to look at the data, or if you do
> not understand the concepts of errors and noise. You have convince yourself
> that experts cannot measure 20 W output with no input. That's a lot like
> saying a doctor cannot be sure if a decapitated a patient is alive or dead.
>

20W output for how long?  I asked you many times for a long running test of
this kind with no issues about any fuel being supplied or power being input
or stored.  I have yet to see one.  Can you put up a link to just ONE
crystal clear and well written up such study?  I have no problem with the
20W.   As long as it CAN'T COME from anything other than a nuclear process.



> The cold fusion claims are equally robust, from a scientific point of
> view. You have no way of judging that because you refuse to look at them.
> You also have no way of knowing whether you could understand them if you
> looked at them. No doubt that is why you refuse to look: it gives you
> "plausible deniability."
>

BS!  I looked at what you provided and I didn't understand it.  There was
no clear plot of time vs excess power in any documents you linked for me
that I examined.  There was no clear discussion of why the excess heat had
to be nuclear.  I had no idea what was on the coordinate axis labels or
why.  I am not primarily a heat transfer specialist.  I have some training
and experience in it but I could not read those graphs without tons of work
and explanation.  It need not be that way.  Time vs excess power is very
simple.  And the time axis had better go for a very long time.  Have any?
I'd love to look and I bet everyone here would like them too, believers and
skeptics about Rossi alike.

Asking people to review dozens or hundreds of paper to demonstrate that
cold fusion is real is ludicrous.

Experts such as Heinz Gerischer who looked that the results in 1990 were
> instantly convinced. They did not have the slightest doubt the results are
> real.


Good for Heinz.  Doesn't help me.  BTW, that reference is a classical
"appeal to authority" logical fallacy.  Thousands of people were convinced
originally by P&F.  Until they tried to replicate their work and then it
all came crashing down.  You may prefer to think that's due to evil doers
and pathological skeptics (what ever that is) but I doubt it very very much,


>  We agree that 20 years is a long time to wait for acceptance if cold
>> fusion is real and if it was truly identified by P&F 20 years ago.
>>
>
> Every expert who has looked at these results carefully says it is real,
> except Britz. Some of the 2004 DoE panel members who spent a few hours
> looking at it in parlor game style review were not convinced, but the
> reasons they gave for doubting it were ludicrous.
>


I suppose we'd better to stick to Rossi again.  God knows, that takes
enough time and energy when it need not require hardly any.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak  wrote:
>>>
>>> Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
>>
>> How do we know the genset output?  It's probably capable of 8x that much.
>
> 470 kVA from the nameplate in Sterling's vid.

Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak  wrote:
>>
>> Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
>
> How do we know the genset output?  It's probably capable of 8x that much.

470 kVA from the nameplate in Sterling's vid.

T
<>

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:
>
>
>> The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
>> hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank run using,
>> say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less*
>> *measured* *heat* than the H2 run . . .
>
>
> Yup. There is another huge practical problem with doing a blank run.
> Injecting nitrogen, air or some other gas into the powder will probably
> contaminate and destroy the powder. This is a problem because of powder is
> expensive and difficult to fabricate. It is also a problem because after
> you contaminate it, you could not produce heat from it. You would have to
> produce heat first, then do your destructive blank run.
>

Tell me again who said anything about injecting anything?  It certainly was
not me.  The only thing I'd inject before the start of the real run is
heat, generated from a metered electrical source.

This is like demanding that Mr. Ford first demonstrate that his Model T can
> drive at 40 mph, then he must demonstrate that when you crash it into a
> brick wall at 40 mph, it is destroyed and cannot drive at any speed after
> that.
>

No.  Why would heating the powder destroys it? If the heat is moderate, I
am certain it wouldn't, based on what Rossi has said about running
temperatures up to 500 C.There is no issue of injecting anything except
heat.  The reactor is sitting there like it always does.  Instead of
injecting hydrogen, you heat the device electrically and measure the output
with the instruments until a steady state is reached.  That's your
calibration run with a blank charge.Then you allow it to cool, charge
it with hydrogen, and run again.  I don't see how that hurts the precious
secret powder which, by the way, Rossi denies is expensive.

As Valconen pointed out, there is no technical justification for a blank
> run, and it would be "trivial to falsify. It does not improve the
> reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax."
>

As you're fond of noting, hoax and error are two different things.  I don't
know (and asked for clarification) what she means by "falsify".   If she
means "fake" the blank run, I don't see it.  How do you fake a calibration
run when done with observers?  The input power is metered, the output power
is measured however it will be measured during a "real" run.  It's very
simple to do.  I am not sure what problem you guys see with it.  I simply
don't understand the argument!

As to hoax, yes, it does not rule out a hoax except for a hoax which would
be heat activated and at least it does that.  My suggestion is not intended
to rule out all hoaxes.  It's intended to stop the constant arguments about
measurement methods for the output energy!  Can I say it clearer?


> Regarding the title of this thread, Krivit (and Yugo too, I think) claim
> it is possible to commit fraud with an escrow agreement in which the
> customer can do any amount of testing before final acceptance
>

I said no such thing and think no such thing.  I think it's possible, even
easy, to bamboozle early (and even later) investors and to trap them with
very well written NDA's and disclaimers relative to the investment.  I
don't think you can fool a customer very long.  What I said was that I
don't believe we have any reason to think Rossi has or ever had a paying
customer -- except for what Rossi says.  I don't put much belief in that
because of the insufficient tests and because of censoring and the
tangential and bizarre answers he gives to perfectly appropriate questions
on his blog.

Of course there is such a thing as escrow fraud -- in fact it's common
Nigerian fraud scheme.  It's not related to this and not within the scope
of the discussion but you can look it up.  Basically, the escrow agent is
not a real company and is part of the fraud.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Daniel Rocha]

That websites promotes WL as an explanation for the ecat and also links to
Jed's library, directly to a pdf link.

2011/11/16 Jed Rothwell 

> Akira Shirakawa wrote:
>
>  That's why somebody should ask Rossi if this website is really what it
>> makes it appear to be:
>>
>
> Good idea. I asked him.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa wrote:

That's why somebody should ask Rossi if this website is really what it 
makes it appear to be:


Good idea. I asked him.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Mary Yugo  wrote:
>
>
>> How do we know the genset output?  It's probably capable of 8x that much.
>>
>
> We do not know the output. We have to trust that Fioravaniti is telling
> the truth. There is no way to independently verify this test. The previous
> tests were manifestly real by first-principle observation alone, but for
> this test we have nothing.
>
>
>
Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the data is
entirely consistent with no excess heat.

Previous tests are also consistent with no excess heat, based on your
first-principle observation. All we know for sure is the ecat stayed at the
boiling point for 3.25 hours with water flowing through at about 1 g/L.
There is no need at all to invoked nuclear reactions to explain that.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Berke Durak  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude 
> wrote:
> > Excess, or stored, or chemically produced?
> > As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the
> power
> > was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at
> most)
> > 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh =
> 1.5
> > GJ
>
> Yeah, but the modules probably don't have enough heat capacity to hold 1.5
> GJ,
> unless you assume they hold iron bricks heated to 1500 degrees celsius.
>  Quite
> an unlikely scamming technique.  Also, that  would be too heavy for the
> way they
> were mounted in the container.


No one can describe in detail the exact nuclear reaction that produces the
necessary heat without radiation, but still people don't seem to have a
problem claiming it's nuclear.

So why is it necessary to describe in detail the energy storage or chemical
reaction that might produce the heat  before you might consider also this
possibility?

There is no question that with a 100 kg device of that size, the energy
density required is completely consistent with ordinary energy storage or
chemical energy production. No one looked inside any of the ecats on Oct
28, so they could contain anything.

There were 107 ecats, so that means that each one only needs to produce
about 10 MJ. Fire brick has a heat capacity of about 1 J/gK, so for a 500C
temperature change, you would need about 20 kg. That's only a fifth of the
total weight, and at a density of 2 g/cm^3, that's only 10 L. I don't see
any problem with that, even given what was shown on Oct 6 with the open
ecat. And some fire brick can be heated to 1500C, so it's possible with
even less of it. Using phase change with molten lead could of course give
much more energy storage, but that doesn't seem to be necessary.

And 10 MJ corresponds to only a few hundred milliliters of a clean burning
fuel like alcohol, just as an example. But some chemical reaction between
the hydrogen and nickel could probably supply that as well, or at least
some fraction of it.

However you want to do it, the claimed energy is obviously well below
ordinary chemical energy density, so I don't see any reason to invoke
nuclear reactions to explain it.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo  wrote:



> Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
>>
>
> How do we know the genset output?  It's probably capable of 8x that much.
>

We do not know the output. We have to trust that Fioravaniti is telling the
truth. There is no way to independently verify this test. The previous
tests were manifestly real by first-principle observation alone, but for
this test we have nothing.

I pointed this out when the Oct. 28 test was still underway. Haiko Lietz
quoted me in the German press.

No one disputes that this test was completely unverifiable. That's what
Lewan reported. At LENR-CANR.org, I linked to his article, writing only:

On October 28, 2011 Rossi ran the entire array of 52 units. It apparently
produced 470 kW, again with no input power. The test was described in
NyTeknik
.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> 2011/11/16 Mary Yugo :
> > The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the
> > measuring method and equipment.  I know of no other iron clad way to do
> > that.  Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple
> > placement and pressure and endless others will continue.  With a proper
> > blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those arguments are
> > untenable.  It's ABSOLUTELY necessary.  Any self respecting scientist
> would
> > require it.  I have no idea why you can't grasp that.  It's usual and
> > standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters.  It's done
> every
> > day!
> >
>
> This is untrue, because blank run is trivial to falsify. It does not
> improve the reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax.
>

Would you mind restating that another way?  I can't understand.  What do
you mean in this context by "falsify"?  I don't understand your objection.
A blank run with an electrical heater providing power simply demonstrates
that BOTH the measuring method AND the measuring instruments work
properly.  It accounts for the time constant of the system and also for any
losses.  Unless done badly, it HAS to do that.   It does take time but not
all that much because unlike the real run which go a very long time anyway,
the calibration run only needs to go until things are relatively stable.
If that seems too long, it can go until you can easily calculate where the
time-temperature curves are going to flatten.  This is standard stuff in
large volume calorimeters.


> Yet again it is far easier to do proper calibration of the
> calorimetry. Not using time consuming blank run, because it does not
> give us any increased accuracy of the measurements.
>

It does if the water doesn't all vaporize to steam or the thermocouples are
placed in too warm a location to represent T-out.  Why wouldn't it help in
such cases?

I understand you can also sparge all the steam in a water tank and
eliminate some of the objections but Rossi has not done that either!   And
that can't run as long as other methods because the water will get too hot
or the tank will have to be extremely large.  I suppose you could heat up a
swimming pool.  That would be a good test (again with electrical heating
calibration first -- this time to determine losses from the pool).



> If we measure for the total enthalpy 25 MJ ± 5MJ and we measure for
> the input energy using oscilloscope 5 MJ ± 50 kJ, then we get for the
> excess heat 20 MJ ± 5 MJ. Blank run does not provide any increased
> accuracy to our measurements, and we can just subtract the input
> energy that was measured with accuracy of ±50kJ. That is, we know the
> result of blank run a priori.
>

But that's the whole issue.  You may not be measuring enthalpy by Rossi's
methods. They may give a WRONG result!  What about that is it that you
can't understand?  In FACT, the thermocouples could be misplaced and the
water may not all be converted to steam (which is important is some
experiments and not others).  How would you know that without calibrating?
Why would you want to avoid calibration unless you were faking it?   Yeah,
I know it takes time.  Any idea how many person-hours have been wasted if
Rossi's machine turns out to be bunk?


> In science, we are only interested to determine the proper error
> margins for the measurements.  For example, that superluminal neutrino
> was observed with probability of six sigma.
>

But that's what we're arguing about -- the error margin -- and you tell me
you don't want to do a simple thing that tells you what it is?  WHY?  I
know.  It takes time.


> But there is also the thing, that heat capacity is rather simple to
> calculate if we know the metal mass and water storage capacity.
>


Yes but you don't know.  You have no clue what it inside the finned
contained inside the big E-cat.  None whatsoever except what Rossi said.

Just out of curiosity, do I need to keep arguing in favor of calibration
with a blank?  Is there anyone else who doesn't get why it's desirable?
Even essential?  I understand a blank may not be perfect because of the
hydrogen issue and I understand there are other reasons the demo may be
faked but the simple test I propose would remove a lot of not all of the
uncertainty about the output heat measurement.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-16 05:32 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:



On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:


There are actually some technical difficulties with a "blank run"
in the Rossi E-cat.

Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a "blank"
run, and compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output.
 If the D2O produces a heat measurement value higher than the H2O
then they can conclude, with good certainty, that something
interesting happened.  That sort of yes/no blank comparison run is
harder to arrange for the E-Cat.

The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as
the hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank
run using, say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to
produce *less* *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's
no new chemistry or physics taking place in the "loaded" E-Cat.
 And that leaves you right back where you started, trying to do
precise calorimetry on the "loaded" run to determine exactly how
much "excess heat" was produced, and comparing it with a
theoretical value for heat of adsorption.


I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.  
The error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if 
(and only if) he runs so long that it's accounted for...


Oh get real.  You just made my point -- the blank and non-blank runs 
must run "long enough" so the excess due to adsorption "is accounted 
for" -- as I said, we're right back to square 1, arguing over the 
calorimetry.


As I said, it's not a yes/no test -- yes, the signature is higher than 
the blank, or no, it's not.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

> There are actually some technical difficulties with a "blank run" in the
> Rossi E-cat.
>
> Wet cold fusion researchers sometimes have used H2O in a "blank" run, and
> compared evolved heat using D2O with the blank output.  If the D2O produces
> a heat measurement value higher than the H2O then they can conclude, with
> good certainty, that something interesting happened.  That sort of yes/no
> blank comparison run is harder to arrange for the E-Cat.
>
> The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
> hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank run using,
> say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less*
> *measured* *heat* than the H2 run, even if there's no new chemistry or
> physics taking place in the "loaded" E-Cat.  And that leaves you right back
> where you started, trying to do precise calorimetry on the "loaded" run to
> determine exactly how much "excess heat" was produced, and comparing it
> with a theoretical value for heat of adsorption.
>

I don't really see an exothermic reaction with hydrogen as a problem.  The
error would be in favor of Rossi and I am happy to accept it if (and only
if) he runs so long that it's accounted for along with any other
non-nuclear source of energy.  There's nt need to run D2O or to try
removing the nickel as I agree, that would be problematical.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert  wrote:

What site do you mean? Which site was "disauthorized" by Rossi? Do you mean
> Allan's site?
>
> Browse Rossis Forum for it.
>

I find it impossible to look for things in is forum!



> I have see it it was accepting preliminary orders for ecats and had prices.
> Rossi warned. . . .
>

I don't recall that.

an unqualified assertion. You can say, "I suppose it is a scam" or "in my
> opinion it may be a scam . . ."
>
>   I say what I want.
>

And you make yourself look like a jerk by doing so. I wanted to say that,
so I did.



> I repeat:
> Dont send your adress to this site.
> Possibly the data goes directly to Piantelli or to a fraudulent green
> energy advertising agenture.
>

Piantelli is a scammer?!? Good grief. I had no idea there were so many
scammers in this business. It is strange that not a single one has been
caught. Perhaps the police are not doing their jobs. They have been warned
often enough by Krivit and others.

This reminds me of Bill Beaty's item 10:

"Don't trust researchers who study parapsychology. They constantly cheat
and lie in order to support their strange worldviews. Very few of them have
been caught at it, but it's not necessary to do so, since any fool can see
that the positive evidence for psi can only be created by people who are
either disturbed or dishonest."

http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

Very few have been caught, the skeptic says, and that proves they are very
good at hiding their cheating. When you cannot see something, that proves
it must be well hidden. Absence proves presence. You can tell someone is
guilty because they act innocent.

By this same logic, Rossi must be a consumate con man because:

He does not look or act like a con man -- he inspires no confidence;
there's not a shred of evidence he has actually conned anyone; his
contracts make a scam impossible . . . so that proves he is very good at
hiding the scam, whatever it may be.

We should call this the Mary Yugo school of logic. That which cannot be
tested or falsified must be true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak  wrote:

>
> Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
>

How do we know the genset output?  It's probably capable of 8x that much.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?

[Mary Yugo]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:46 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> The heater is hidden within the heat sink device is close contact with the
> core.
>


On the original E-cat with the copper tubing, the main heater is a standard
industrial unit strapped around the outer tube.  As such, it can only heat
the coolant!  Why would that be done that way?  It was described by Rossi
as a safety heater.  How does heating an exothermic reaction help with
safety as opposed to say, providing a river of emergency coolant if needed?

Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor : no bottom fins, parallel cores

[Alan J Fletcher]

a) Why no bottom heat exchanger fins?

Rossi said a long time ago that the Gamma thermalization was partly 
in the lead shielding. In the original tubular ecats the lead was 
probably in contact with the copper pipe. I would expect the bottom 
lead to need fins. (I'd put them back, with a "?")


http://ecat.com/ecat-questions/how-does-an-ecat-work

says :


The current design of the reactor is a small rectangular plate 20cm x 
20cm with a thickness of about 4cm (external dimensions of reactor). 
The fuel, Nickel of very fine granularity + Hydrogen + catalyst, is 
placed in a thin layer at the center of the reactor core. The reactor 
is located at the bottom of a steel box (the outer hull of the E-Cat 
is currently at a size that can easily fit on a small table) and 
directly attached to the reactor is cooling elements in the form of 
wings. These wings are crucial as they transmit the heat generated in 
the reactor to the surrounding water.


There is a cold water inlet into the steel box and a warm water 
outlet. As the cold water flows past the reactor, the cooling 
elements will heat it up and the flux of the water (e.g. liters/h) 
dictates the difference between in and out temperature. In this way 
hot water or steam can be produced.


SO : no bottom fins, no water flow through three cores in series.

I was a bit confused by "cooling elements" ... they cool the reactor 
and heat the water. 

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-11-16 22:57, Peter Heckert wrote:

[...]

This is not a professional commercial site, regardless if Rossi approves
it or not.


I see there still are problems.

What I meant however is that this one not only looks better than 
Allan's, but shows the information I'd expect to see in the right way, 
even if not in an excessively sophisticated manner (flashy animations, 
cutting edge design, etc - the kind of marketing fluff and stuff that 
especially big corporations pay much attention to).



Could be a scam to collect high valued commercial email adresses,
but only naive persons will send their official company adress to them.
Such a scam was some weeks ago and it was disauthorized by Rossi himself
soon.


Could be, yes.
That's why somebody should ask Rossi if this website is really what it 
makes it appear to be:


From http://ecat.com/about


ECAT.com in Association with Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation offers a 
platform for interested parties in the ECAT technology.

ECAT.com is currently, as the first site in the World, accepting pre-orders of 
ECAT products through the ECAT inquiry form on the right. These are non binding 
pre-orders but guarantees new customers a position on the waiting list which 
will be subject to a first-come first-serve policy.

ECAT.com is by its designation to the Andrea Rossi’s ECAT a promoter of green, 
clean and affordable energy production.


Keep in mind that this website until a few days ago showed on its home 
page professionally made videos of Rossi's E-Cat (or ECAT?) tests 
performed in Bologna. It looked as if they were building up hype for 
something... which in the end resulted in this website.


Rossi must at the very least know who made the videos, since he invited 
them to his tests and was interviewed by these people.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 16.11.2011 23:06, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de>> 
wrote:


Could be a scam to collect high valued commercial email adresses,
but only naive persons will send their official company  adress to
them.
Such a scam was some weeks ago and it was disauthorized by Rossi
himself soon.


What site do you mean? Which site was "disauthorized" by Rossi? Do you 
mean Allan's site?

Browse Rossis Forum for it.
I have see it it was accepting preliminary orders for ecats and had prices.
Rossi warned. Its all in his forum, but sorry I have no pointer
I do not think that was a scam. Do you know of any evidence showing it 
was a scam, such as a police report, or complaints from users?


If you do not have any evidence that something is a scam, please do 
make this as an unqualified assertion. You can say, "I suppose it is a 
scam" or "in my opinion it may be a scam . . ."



I say what I want.
People have been throwing around the word "scam" here a lot lately. As 
far as I can tell, none of these people have any evidence that a scam 
or other crime has been committed. In my opinion, it is highly 
inappropriate to make such baseless accusations here. Go write a 
message on Krivit's site, which seems to be devoted these days to the 
notion that Rossi is committing crimes.



I have never said, Rossi commits crimes.
I have said fraud cannot be excluded with these bussinespartners and 
unproven functionality of their product.


I dont need to give evidence. I have undisclosed and confidential and 
trustable authoritative sources. ;-)
Future will give evidence, but so far I know your selective memory you 
will have forgotten what I say as soon as it happens.


I repeat:
Dont send your adress to this site.
Possibly the data goes directly to Piantelli or to a fraudulent green 
energy advertising agenture.


Peter

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Heckert  wrote:


> Could be a scam to collect high valued commercial email adresses,
> but only naive persons will send their official company  adress to them.
> Such a scam was some weeks ago and it was disauthorized by Rossi himself
> soon.
>

What site do you mean? Which site was "disauthorized" by Rossi? Do you mean
Allan's site?

I do not think that was a scam. Do you know of any evidence showing it was
a scam, such as a police report, or complaints from users?

If you do not have any evidence that something is a scam, please do make
this as an unqualified assertion. You can say, "I suppose it is a scam" or
"in my opinion it may be a scam . . ."

People have been throwing around the word "scam" here a lot lately. As far
as I can tell, none of these people have any evidence that a scam or other
crime has been committed. In my opinion, it is highly inappropriate to make
such baseless accusations here. Go write a message on Krivit's site, which
seems to be devoted these days to the notion that Rossi is committing
crimes.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 16.11.2011 22:44, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:

On 2011-11-16 21:49, David ledin wrote:

  look professional

   http://ecat.com/


This one does look like a proper corporate website. It's also 
surprisingly informative and it seems it will be regularly updated too 
on this aspect. Way to go!


I wonder if it's Rossi-approved, just to be sure.
Somebody should ask him on his JONP Blog.

The domain owner is  a proxy service and the authorized user not disclosed.
There is no adress, no phone number,no fax number given.
The NI Logo is used without authorization.
This is not a professional commercial site, regardless if Rossi approves 
it or not.

Could be a scam to collect high valued commercial email adresses,
but only naive persons will send their official company  adress to them.
Such a scam was some weeks ago and it was disauthorized by Rossi himself 
soon.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Jed Rothwell]

Mary Yugo wrote:

  If so, the entire scientific community must be incredibly obstinate 
or the proof for cold fusion isn't very good or some combination of both.


It is entirely the first. That is true of all other examples in which 
the scientific establishment rejected claims for years or decades. You 
can find hundreds of examples; this sort of thing happens all the time. 
The quality of the proof is never an issue. The proof of cold fusion is 
better than the proof of countless other claims that were instantly 
accepted. As I said, the only metric that counts is money. Academic 
funding: money and power. People oppose cold fusion because their 
salaries depend upon opposing it. This is Upton Sinclair's dictum: "It 
is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary 
depends upon his not understanding it!"


Others oppose it because they oppose everything.


  Or maybe cold fusion has yet to be properly demonstrated and the 
sincere researchers are looking at errors and noise. 


You can only believe that if you refuse to look at the data, or if you 
do not understand the concepts of errors and noise. You have convince 
yourself that experts cannot measure 20 W output with no input. That's a 
lot like saying a doctor cannot be sure if a decapitated a patient is 
alive or dead.



As I've said before, I have no way to choose personally between those 
options.  My interest is focused only on Rossi because of the 
robustness of the claims . . .


The cold fusion claims are equally robust, from a scientific point of 
view. You have no way of judging that because you refuse to look at 
them. You also have no way of knowing whether you could understand them 
if you looked at them. No doubt that is why you refuse to look: it gives 
you "plausible deniability."


Experts such as Heinz Gerischer who looked that the results in 1990 were 
instantly convinced. They did not have the slightest doubt the results 
are real.



We agree that 20 years is a long time to wait for acceptance if cold 
fusion is real and if it was truly identified by P&F 20 years ago.


Every expert who has looked at these results carefully says it is real, 
except Britz. Some of the 2004 DoE panel members who spent a few hours 
looking at it in parlor game style review were not convinced, but the 
reasons they gave for doubting it were ludicrous.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Stop Destroying Keyboards

[James Bowery]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Bowery  wrote:
>
>>
>> The pseudoskeptics are basically saying that all we have to do is look at
>> the circumstantial evidence to know that even cursory investigation of the
>> direct evidence of the Rossi phenomenon (which implies suspending
>> skepticism about Rossi's claims the way one does in a logical proof
>> involving an assumed condition) is ill-advised (to say the least, by
>> Jove!).  This would approximate a reasonable opinion ONLY if P&F were not
>> valid.  If P&F are  valid, and we have the possibility of invalidating
>> Rossi's claims merely on direct evidence, what is ill-advised is to ignore
>> what direct evidence we have available if there is any plausible
>> expectation that by doing so we can invalidate Rossi's claims.
>>
>>
> Whew. My sympathies for your clients, if that's an example of your
> communication to them.
>

Yeah I should take more than 30 seconds to bang out a report to them.
OOPS!  I Do!  Sorry if I don't accord you the same courtesy.


> But if I get the gist of it, I agree that if P&F is accepted, then Rossi
> should be considered more seriously. But, Rossi would know that P&F is
> accepted by a lot of people (many who are desperate to "spread the word",
> as if it is religious), and that the unwashed are rather susceptible to its
> claims. That would make cold fusion a rather fertile area for attracting
> investment for extraordinary claims, even if one's demos do no more than
> hint at them. So, whether or not one accepts P&F, without good evidence,
> skepticism of Rossi is well-advised, especially in view of his history.
>

Boy that sounds familiar!

>From "Excess Heat" by Beaudette chapter Baltimor, section The Assault:

Koonin offered this denouement to the gathered professional audience.  "We
are suffering from the incompetence and perhaps delusions of Drs. Pons and
Fleischmann," a comment he knew was likely to destroy their professional
stature.  The audience sat quietly for a moment, possibly waiting to see if
the sky would fall, and then it burst into enthusiastic and sustained
applause.  The assembly of physicists had found their deliverance...That
considerable response of the roomful of physicists ought not be attributed
entirely to the persuasive powers of Koonin and Lewis.  As scientists the
two did not carry great authority within their respective professions.
They were only a couple of especially competent professors.  Their polemics
on that evening in May (1, 1989) simply triggered the pent-up emotions of
the audience.

Re: [Vo]:thin Ni layer at center of reactor core. was Official ECAT site, finally?

[Peter Heckert]

Am 16.11.2011 22:25, schrieb francis:


Daniel,

   It appears to contain new information that- if correct- 
 will make for interesting discussion. [snip]The fuel, Nickel of very 
fine granularity + Hydrogen + catalyst, is placed in a thin layer at 
the center of the reactor core.[/snip] How can the heat be generated 
in the center of the reactor and still heat sink effectively to the 
walls? I know plasma is a better electrical conductor than metal but 
can it provide this sort of thermal conduction? Or is the reaction 
primarily occurring in the plasma while the powder layer and catalyst 
supply fractional Rydberg hydrogen into an homogenized plasma 
atmosphere filling the entire volume inside the reactor core?


Fran

[Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?**

Daniel Rocha
Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:33:27 -0800

This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the
October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an
official website.
  
http://ecat.com/



This looks good.

Problem is, the domain owner is unknown according to WHOIS database and 
it is unclear who operates it.

There is no impressum and no contact data given, no adress no phone no FAX
This is not a company website.
This outs it as nonserious noncommercial site.
There was a scam site selling ecats some weeks ago which after some time 
was disauthorized by Rossi.

It might be a scam to collect mail adresses.
So lets wait what happens. Possibly Rossi disapproves this site again.

They claim this:

ECAT.com in Association with Andrea Rossi and Leonardo Corporation 
offers a platform for interested parties in the ECAT technology.

But it is impossible to test, if it is true.

Im also interested if National Instruments will tolerate forever the 
unauthorized use of their logo on this site. I dont believe so.

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-11-16 21:49, David ledin wrote:

  look professional

   http://ecat.com/


This one does look like a proper corporate website. It's also 
surprisingly informative and it seems it will be regularly updated too 
on this aspect. Way to go!


I wonder if it's Rossi-approved, just to be sure.
Somebody should ask him on his JONP Blog.

Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Robert Lynn]

Iron is far from the best heat storage medium.  Graphite can store up to
1.5kWh/kg or nearly 3kWh/l in a vacuum enclosure.  1.5GJ from 50 modules
would only require about 16kg or 8 liters per module.

There are also a lot of high heat of fusion materials:
LiH that requires about 1.6kWh/kg to heat from room temp to melt at 960K
(~1.3kWh/L)
Silicon metal that releases 0.8kWh/kg to heat up and melt at 1700K
(~1.9kWh/l)
LiF that releases 0.6Wh/kg heating to melt at 1120K (~1.5kWh/L).

Other posiblities on p17:
dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/35343/20099220.pdf

It would also be easy to create a thermal storage vessel that would only
release significant heat when immersed in water, just insulate it and use a
carefully designed heat transfer area or tube that penetrates the
insulation.  Air has such low density compared to water that this would cut
heat loss massively until immersed thereby allowing heating during startup
phase or hours beforehand before it needed to deliver the goods.

The chimney unit in the early demos could hide such a thermal store, and
there is more than enough space in later fat-cat modules to do this sort of
thing.

All unlikely, but does raise the bar on standards required for an
unambiguous demonstration.

On 16 November 2011 20:55, Berke Durak  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude 
> wrote:
> > Excess, or stored, or chemically produced?
> > As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the
> power
> > was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at
> most)
> > 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh =
> 1.5
> > GJ
>
> Yeah, but the modules probably don't have enough heat capacity to hold 1.5
> GJ,
> unless you assume they hold iron bricks heated to 1500 degrees celsius.
>  Quite
> an unlikely scamming technique.  Also, that  would be too heavy for the
> way they
> were mounted in the container.  Quoting my own Nov. 9th mail:
>
> > Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not
> > per volume.
> >
> > One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per
> > kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something
> > like 2.33 MJ per kelvin.
> >
> > In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800
> > degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees.
> >
> > So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above
> > background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ.  One cubic
> > meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ.
> >
> > Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported.
> > With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters.
> > With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters.
> >
> > Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm.
> > That makes 4.7 cubic meters.  Not enough space for cement
> > (unless you know of some special kind of cement.)
> >
> > Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at
> > 250 kg per module.
>
> --
> Berke Durak
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Oct 28 Condenser Problem

[James Bowery]

Erratum:  "One channel" -> "The seven channels"

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Examining the condenser, the condenser channels are horizontal pipes in a
> vertical array.  It _appears_ as though each of 7 channels does one
> round-trip, returning on the pipe just below.  One channel would look like:
>
>  ___ Inflowing vapor
> (___ Outflowing liquid
>   ___ Inflowing vapor
> (___ Outflowing liquid
>   ___ Inflowing vapor
> (___ Outflowing liquid
>   ___ Inflowing vapor
> (___ Outflowing liquid
>   ___ Inflowing vapor
> (___ Outflowing liquid
>   ___ Inflowing vapor
> (___ Outflowing liquid
>   ___ Inflowing vapor
> (___ Outflowing liquid
>
>
> So the steam feeder and water collector pipes must be vertical.  But this
> creates a problem on the water collection side:  What is the water level in
> the vertical collector pipe and how is it to not interfere with the entry
> of steam at that level?

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Jed Rothwell]

That's much better. I like this better than Defkalion's site. That one
isn't bad, but this one has better content and better code.

This shows that Rossi knows how to do PR right. He says he was too busy to
evaluate Allan's site. I believe he must have been, since he dumped that
site and went with this one instead.

Sterling Allan has his heart in the right place but he can be too
enthusiastic. I agree with Mary Yugo that his unquestioning acceptance of
many odd claims is unnerving. I do not like to see cold fusion associated
with trips to Mars. I don't care for his web site designs either, but that
is a matter of taste.

I wish Rossi would fix his own website,
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/ Such a wacky name! Somehow it is
endearing.

- Jed

[Vo]:thin Ni layer at center of reactor core. was Official ECAT site, finally?

[francis]

Daniel,

   It appears to contain new information that- if correct-  will
make for interesting discussion. [snip] The fuel, Nickel of very fine
granularity + Hydrogen + catalyst, is placed in a thin layer at the center
of the reactor core.[/snip] How can the heat be generated in the center of
the reactor and still heat sink effectively to the walls? I know plasma is a
better electrical conductor than metal but can it provide this sort of
thermal conduction? Or is the reaction primarily occurring in the plasma
while the powder layer and catalyst supply fractional Rydberg hydrogen into
an homogenized plasma atmosphere filling the entire volume inside the
reactor core?

 

 

Fran

 

[Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?

Daniel Rocha
Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:33:27 -0800

This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the
October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an
official website.
 
http://ecat.com/

 

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Joe Hughes]

yeah looks real nice.
I'm very impressed.

On 11/16/2011 03:50 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:

I already posted this, LOL!

2011/11/16 David ledin >


 look professional

http://ecat.com/

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 12:53 PM 11/16/2011, James Bowery wrote:
The Ni Curie temperature may
explain it.  The core temperature is what I am thinking about when I
talk about the "coincidence" (understanding that we don't have
direct read-outs from it).  So if it is some sort of ferromagnetic
transition phenomenon, then the close proximity to 100C of Ni's Curie
temperature is, indeed, a coincidence/serendipity.
Now, the question is:  Are we dealing with a ferromagnetic
transition phenomenon???
Kim :

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf
 
specifically thinks it's the Curie temp.
His other papers referenced from that one are at :

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.shtml 

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the
> hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel.  This means that a blank run using,
> say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less*
> *measured* *heat* than the H2 run . . .


Yup. There is another huge practical problem with doing a blank run.
Injecting nitrogen, air or some other gas into the powder will probably
contaminate and destroy the powder. This is a problem because of powder is
expensive and difficult to fabricate. It is also a problem because after
you contaminate it, you could not produce heat from it. You would have to
produce heat first, then do your destructive blank run.

This is like demanding that Mr. Ford first demonstrate that his Model T can
drive at 40 mph, then he must demonstrate that when you crash it into a
brick wall at 40 mph, it is destroyed and cannot drive at any speed after
that.

As Valconen pointed out, there is no technical justification for a blank
run, and it would be "trivial to falsify. It does not improve the
reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax."

Regarding the title of this thread, Krivit (and Yugo too, I think) claim it
is possible to commit fraud with an escrow agreement in which the customer
can do any amount of testing before final acceptance, and the customer is
free to return the goods for any reason without executing the escrow
agreement. (I assume there is some reasonable time restriction, such as 4
months.) Apparently, these people do not know an escrow agreement is, or
what "final acceptance" means. This is business 101. Fraud is impossible
with these arrangements, unless the customer defrauds himself.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Berke Durak]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> Excess, or stored, or chemically produced?
> As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power
> was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at most)
> 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh = 1.5
> GJ

Yeah, but the modules probably don't have enough heat capacity to hold 1.5 GJ,
unless you assume they hold iron bricks heated to 1500 degrees celsius.  Quite
an unlikely scamming technique.  Also, that  would be too heavy for the way they
were mounted in the container.  Quoting my own Nov. 9th mail:

> Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not
> per volume.
>
> One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per
> kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something
> like 2.33 MJ per kelvin.
>
> In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800
> degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees.
>
> So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above
> background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ.  One cubic
> meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ.
>
> Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported.
> With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters.
> With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters.
>
> Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm.
> That makes 4.7 cubic meters.  Not enough space for cement
> (unless you know of some special kind of cement.)
>
> Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at
> 250 kg per module.

-- 
Berke Durak

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?

[James Bowery]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> At 11:32 AM 11/16/2011, James Bowery wrote:
>
>> Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which
>> reaction initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling
>> point of water?
>>
>
> Mostly coincidence, but it also represents the point at which the entire
> system has heated up to its operating temperature.
> We have no idea what the core temperature is --  but it's most likely the
> Ni Curie temperature of 358°C  (catalyst?)
>
>
>
The Ni Curie temperature may explain it.  The core temperature is what I am
thinking about when I talk about the "coincidence" (understanding that we
don't have direct read-outs from it).  So if it is some sort of
ferromagnetic transition phenomenon, then the close proximity to 100C of
Ni's Curie temperature is, indeed, a coincidence/serendipity.

Now, the question is:  Are we dealing with a ferromagnetic transition
phenomenon???

Re: [Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[Daniel Rocha]

I already posted this, LOL!

2011/11/16 David ledin 

>  look professional
>
>  http://ecat.com/
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?

[Daniel Rocha]

WTF

THEY MENTION WIDOM LARSEN THEORY AS THE THEORY FOR THE E-CAT!!!

http://ecat.com/ecat-technology/ecat-science

2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha 

> They even link directly to Jed Rothwell's website:
>
> http://ecat.com/ecat-technology
>
> I hope he doesn't mind giving out some free bandwidth! :)
>
>
> 2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha 
>
>> This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the
>> October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an
>> official website.
>>
>> http://ecat.com/
>>
>
>

[Vo]:ECAT.com lunch new website in association with andrea rossi.

[David ledin]

 look professional

  http://ecat.com/

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Berke Durak  wrote:

> So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature
> of
> ~18 degrees (Celsius).
>
> Output temperature was 104.5 C average.
>
> I don't give a damn about steam.  I presume the boiler wasn't operating at
> sub-atmospheric pressure, right?  So let's just say that the water was
> heated
> to at least 100 degrees.
>
> 3716 liters of water flowed, came in at 18.3, came out at > 100 and cooled
> down
> before going back into the reservoir, since the average temperature was 18
> degrees.
>
> So delta T is > 80 degrees.
>
> With a heat capacity of 4.2 kJ / kg / K we get :
>
>  Q = 3716 kg × 4.2 kJ / kg / K x 80 K = 1.25 GJ.
>
> Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ.
>
> So that's 1 GJ of excess heat.
>


Excess, or stored, or chemically produced?

As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power
was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at
most) 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600
J/Wh = 1.5 GJ

So a total output energy less than the total input energy is consistent
with the data provided. And that leaves aside the possibility of energy
production by chemical means.

What is abundantly clear is that the demonstration, even if you accept the
data presented, is a long way from being an unequivocal demonstration of
heat in excess of what could be stored or produced chemically.

Re: [Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?

[Daniel Rocha]

They even link directly to Jed Rothwell's website:

http://ecat.com/ecat-technology

I hope he doesn't mind giving out some free bandwidth! :)

2011/11/16 Daniel Rocha 

> This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the
> October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an
> official website.
>
> http://ecat.com/
>

[Vo]:Official ECAT site, finally?

[Daniel Rocha]

This is the old ecat.com domain, that one with the videos about the
October's experiments. Now, it was refurbished and it looks like really an
official website.

http://ecat.com/

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction
> initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of
> water?
>

The water never goes above 100°C because it is at one atmosphere. It boils.
In the Defkalion system, they use another fluid such as ethylene glycol in
the primary loop. It has a higher boiling point and it gets much hotter.
This is a better method.

There is no telling what the temperature inside the cell is.

The temperature of an electric stove element or flame is much higher
than 100°C but a pot of boiling water is always at this temperature, never
higher, except in a pressure cooker.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio

[Alan J Fletcher]

That link got snipped away :

I haven't answered that yet --- but I've prepared a table of 
Experiments/Attendees and Instruments

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table.php
which IMHO substantially supports my comment.

Comments, clarifications  and corrections are appreciated.

Re: [Vo]:Detailed exposed of the e-cat scam.

[Rich Murray]

Mary Yugo's recent cogent comments re blank runs are here replicated for
emphasis:

You keep saying that but it's not correct.
The purpose of controls (more precisely, blank runs in which nuclear fuel
is left out but an electrical heater is providing comparable power) is to
demonstrate that the measurement *method* and *devices* are working
correctly.
This has been argued at length -- steam or no steam, thermocouple
placements, errors from the hot side of the heat exchanger through the
block, and so on.
ALL of that is gone if a blank test with an electrical heater gives the
correct result at the output measurement end.
Rossi knows that -- he's been told many times by probably dozens of people.
That he doesn't do it is a strong suggestion that his reaction isn't real.


The purpose of a blank/calibration run, I say *again*, is to validate the
measuring method and equipment.
I know of no other iron clad way to do that.
Without it, arguments about dryness of steam and thermocouple placement and
pressure and endless others will continue.
With a proper blank/calibration (if it's done correctly) all those
arguments are untenable.
It's ABSOLUTELY necessary.
Any self respecting scientist would require it.
I have no idea why you can't grasp that.
It's usual and standard to calibrate calorimeters with electrical heaters.
It's done every day!


On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Mary Yugo  wrote:

I need to add that a calibration run with an electrical heater supplying
> all the heat also provides very valuable information about the heat
> capacity and time constant of the system.



> And finally, if hydrogen (but nothing else) is omitted for the blank run,
> any chemical reaction or other subterfuge which is activated by heating
> would be revealed.
>
> Of course other ways of cheating are not totally excluded but proper blank
> and calibration runs would go a long ways to inconveniencing a potential
> scammer to the extreme if astute observers were standing by.
>

Re: [Vo]:When faced with reality

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:

Regarding the Right Brothers, when proof became irrefutable that
> their contraption could fly under power, how did some of the most
> ardent (and well known) skeptics deal with the news? I'm curious as to
> what kind of follow-up might have been performed on these individual. Were
> some interviewed and asked as to what they were thinking about when the
> news finally sunk in? Did they simply change their opinion and tehn get on
> with the rest of their lives, or did some come up with other interesting
>  rationalizations to explain their prior POVs?
>

That is a very interesting question. The responses from three groups of
skeptics has been preserved in history books. You can probably find more in
original sources, such as books now available on Google. Anyway, the three
groups I have in mind were:

1. Scientists

2. Rival aviators

3. People in small cities and rural places who still didn't believe it.
This group went on disbelieving up to WWI.

The first group was scientists who thought they were experts. As I wrote in
my essay, they declared that "a heavier-than-air flying machine was
physically impossible. It was an absurdity, a gross violation of the laws
of nature. This had been proved mathematically with 'unassailable logic' by
leading experts in physics, writing in distinguished journals and
magazines." These people did not say it is impossible to fly. Anyone could
see birds and insects can fly. They said that no man-made machine would
ever be larger than an insect. Some of them said that even if you manage to
fly there is no method of landing without smashing the machine. Others said
that no internal combustion engine will ever produce as a power to weight
ratio as good as the muscles of a bird. These statements were preposterous
but they were taken seriously in the mass media.

After the Wright brothers flew, most of these people shut up. One of the
most famous, Prof. Simon Newcomb, was contacted by reporters after the
Orville flew in Washington DC in 1908. The reporter asked if he thought
"passenger planes would be the next step." Quoting the official biography,
p. 228:

"No," Newcomb was reported to have replied, "because no plane could ever
carry the weight of anyone besides the pilot." It might have been expected
that by this time professor Newcomb would have become more cautious!

A few days later Orville flew with a passenger, as he had done months
earlier -- a fact reported in many magazines.

History does not record what Newcomb said after that, but for many years
people opposed the development of aviation because they said it would it
would never become a practical means of transportation, it would always be
very dangerous, and it had no value for the military, in reconnaissance or
for any other purpose. They tried to prevent national armies from wasting
money on it. They successfully prevented the US army from developing
aviation before 1917. If they had also prevented the British and French
governments, the allies would have lost the war by 1916.

Rivals included the French aviators, A. G. Bell, Curtiss, Chanute and
others. Some were supportive of the Wrights all along. Others said the
Wrights' claims were exaggerated. The French were particularly sarcastic
until the day Wilbur flew in France. Most of them immediately admitted in
the national press that they had been wrong. They praised the Wrights to
the skies. F. Peyrey wrote: "I shall try to give an idea of the
incomparable mastery of the American aviators in the marvelous art of
imitating the birds. For a long time -- for too long a time -- the Wright
brothers have been accused in Europe of bluffing; perhaps even in their own
land. Today they are hallowed by France, and I feel an intense pleasure in
counting myself among the first to make amends for such flagrant injustice
. . ."

I predict that no opponent of cold fusion will ever say anything so nice.

Chanute -- who considered himself their mentor -- accused the Wrights of
tying to make money from their invention instead of giving it over to
society out of altruism. In the press Chanute modestly took credit for
their work. Their long friendship ended badly. It is difficult to
understand why he thought that two brothers who had worked night and day
for eight years, risked all their money, and were nearly killed a dozen
times should have handed over their invention for nothing. By the same
token I wonder why people nowadays think that although Rossi has worked for
15 years and often risked his life he should be kind enough to give us his
discovery for nothing, even though it is worth a trillion dollars. As I
said, I wish that such people would please send me a check for all the
money they have, as a favor, because I am such a nice person. A cashier's
check would be great. My address is 1954 Airport Rd.

Curtiss and others immediately began trying to prove that Langley had
actually flown before the Wrights, in order to break the patent. They

Re: [Vo]:Swedish Radio

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:52 AM 11/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I haven't answered that yet --- but I've prepared a table of 
Experiments/Attendees and Instruments

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table.php
which IMHO substantially supports my comment.

Comments, clarifications  and corrections are appreciated.

NOTE : to avoid massive cut-and-pastes, I'll repost this paragraph 
as soon as I get it back via vortex.


(lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat  -- Hi, google!)

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 11:32 AM 11/16/2011, James Bowery wrote:
Is there a plausible explanation for why the 
temperature at which reaction initiates in the 
E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of water?


Mostly coincidence, but it also represents the 
point at which the entire system has heated up to its operating temperature.
We have no idea what the core temperature is 
--  but it's most likely the Ni Curie temperature of 358°C  (catalyst?)

Re: [Vo]:This forum is not a supermarket checkout line tabloid

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-11-15 03:32 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:

Owners yes.  Users no.

And MAC address?


You put your MAC address in your email headers?

What on Earth for?

(FWIW that's the address (in known space-time) of your network card, and 
it's not necessarily mapped 1:1 or even 1:n to user IDs, as a single 
machine may have multiple network cards.)

[Vo]:Swedish Radio

[Alan J Fletcher]

The discussion on the Swedish Radio issue has concentrated on the
"scam" elements.
Krivit : Swedish Public Radio Turns Spotlight on Lewan and Ny Teknik
<
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/12/swedish-public-radio-turns-spotlight-on-lewan-and-ny-teknik/
>
Source: Radio Sweden
<
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/gruppsida.aspx?programid=2795&grupp=9286&artikel=4797694
>
Google translate -- I highly recommend using the Chrome Broswer + Google
translate
The idea that one day we will be able to provide us with cheap, simple
and green energy is an eternal dream. Now say two Italians that they have
found a solution, they have developed the ultimate perpetual motion
machine. It's just that no one may look at it. And no basis can test if
it really works. 
Science Journalists are skeptical and really make a lot of warning bells.
For example, the main character has a fake degree from Kensington
University, and the findings have not been published in a scientific
journal but only on Rossi's own page. 
Almost all media for that reason chose not to address this alleged
invention any more attention.But there is one exception. New Technology
in Sweden has in the past year written over 20 articles on Andrea Rossi's
stunning gizmo - and now accused the newspaper to advertise a scam. 

I responded in defense of Mats :
Thanks, Mr Lewan and NyTeknikPlease forgive my English :
attempting to answer in Swedish would be more insulting.
Mr Fredriksson says (via google translate) "Not even the simple
knowledge that energy can neither be produced or consumed first law of
thermodynamics seems to have taken hold of the editorial staff and
definitely not with Lewan."
The eCat is presumed to be a Cold Fusion device. Has Mr Fredriksson heard
of Einstein and his famous equation e = mc2 ? Cold Fusion is most likely
real --- see http://lenr-canr.org/
for numerous successful experiments -- and is being actively investigated
by NASA : see

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1983
Of course Mr Rossi won't let anyone look inside the eCat : until he has
world-wide patents he must protect it as a trade secret. But he has
invited several teams of scientists to conduct calorimetric tests to
measure the excess energy, using their own instruments. In particular,
Lewan brought his own calibrated thermometers. (Should a motoring
journalist not accept a test drive in a Volvo, and bring his own
stopwatch?).
Lewan has reported accurately on his observations, with few comments of
his own. This is in NO way "in support of a scam".
I congratulate Lewan and NyTeknik on their coverage.
---
and was challenged on the blog (and -- politely and reasonably -- by
Steve Krivit in email)
SV:Thanks, Mr Lewan and NyTeknikRe Alan Fletcher:
"But he HAS invited several teams of scientists to conduct
calorimetric tests to Measure the excess energy, Using Their own
instruments." May I dispute this sentence by Mr. Fletcher. There has
never been any calorimetry done by an outside independent scientist
auditing Rossi's work and certainly not with their own equipment. Lewan
is not a scientist affiliated with any university and a few temperature
readings does not constitute a calorimetry test as Mr. Fletcher knows
well. Mr. Rossi had made several invitations to renown scientists prior
to Oct. 2011 and Mr. Rossi also promised that calorimetry will be done
independently by them, but of course that did not happen. Now Mr. Rossi
has said after the Oct. 28 test that no more tests will be conducted
because he is in the process of commercializing his invention and has
done so by selling of his 1MW plant to an unnamed putative buyer.
LENR Learner,
2011-11-13 03:54
-
I haven't answered that yet --- but I've prepared a table of
Experiments/Attendees and Instruments

http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_eai_table.php
which IMHO substantially supports my comment.
Comments, clarifications  and corrections are appreciated.
NOTE : to avoid massive cut-and-pastes, I'll repost this paragraph as
soon as I get it back via vortex.
---

ps  Krivit has chosen not to reprint Lewan's comments.
Google-translated :
Re: Most embarrassing prestige, Lewan!Roger, I'll
probably ask you to read on a bit. It produces no energy. If the unit
does release the energy that seems to come from a yet unknown type of
nuclear reaction, then, of course, by a corresponding reduction in the
total mass. No breach of thermodynamics first movement, in other words.

Probemet discussed is to obtain sufficient evidence that it really freed
net energy. 
Whether that is theoretically explained or not does not matter. 
What is important when the Wrig

Re: [Vo]:High school physics says > 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo

[Albert]

You forgot to add the energy deposited during the heating period, about 2 
hours, before the demonstration started the self-sustained mode.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?

[David Roberson]

Actually, the initiation temperature is much above 100 C.  The heater is hidden 
within the heat sink device is close contact with the core.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: James Bowery 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Nov 16, 2011 2:35 pm
Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat's Big Scientific Coincidence?


Is there a plausible explanation for why the temperature at which reaction 
initiates in the E-Cat just happens to be so close to the boiling point of 
water?

A NiH system doesn't bear any particular relationship to water that I can see.

Is this a big scientific coincidence/serendipity or is there a plausible 
explanation for the apparent coincidence?